JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - The opposite party is the Assessee in all these five references. S.J.C. No. 23 of 1961 arises out of the assessment to the opposite party by the sales tax authorities for the quarter ending 31-3-1955, S.J.C. No. 24 of 1961 arises out of the assessment for the quarter ending: 30-6-1956, S.J.C. No. 25 of 1961 arises out of the assessment for the quarter ending 30-9-1955, S.J.C. No. 6 of 1?61 arises out of the asssment for the quarter ending 31-12-1955 and S.J.C. No. 27 of 1961 arises out of the assessment for the quarter ending is 31-3-1956. 2. The question referred to this Court for opinion in all these cases is as follows: Whether in view of Act I of 1955, inserting Section 5(2)(B) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act with effect from the 31st January 1955, the Tribunal is right in following the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of S. Lal & Co. and M.A. Tullock, being the subject matter of S.J.C. No. 4 of 1958 reported in Member, Sales Tax Tribunal Vs. S. Lal and Co., and S.J.C. 38 of 1959 reported in M.A. Tullock and Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Orissa, respectively, in the instant case, for the quarters 31-3-1955 to: U-3-1956. 3. In Member, Sales Tax Tribunal Vs. S. Lal and Co., and M.A. Tullock and Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Orissa, a Division Bench of this Court was required to consider whether for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act the only piece of evidence admissible would be a declaration under Rule 27(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. This Court held that though Rule 27(2) is a rule of evidence nevertheless apart from such declaration it was open to the Assessee by adducing other evidence, to claim exemption u/s 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. But those decisions dealt with assessments of the year 1951. But we find that the Legislature by an amendment to Section 5 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, brought about by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 1954 (Orissa Act I of 1955) inserted a new Clause (B) in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 to the following effect: (B) For the purpose of ascertaining the deductions under this Sub-section the same shall be proved in the prescribed manner. 4. 4. This amending Act was published in the Gazette on 1-2-1955 and hence came into force on that day and not on the 31st January 1955 as wrongly mentioned in the orders of reference by the Commissioner. From 1-2-1955 therefore by virtue of the said amendment to the section itself, if any Assessee claimed exemption u/s 5(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, he shall have to prove his claim in the "prescribed manner" that is to say in the manner prescribed in the rules made under the Act. The effect of the amendment would therefore be to take away the right of the Assessee to adduce evidence independent of Rule 27(2), for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 5(2)(ii) of the Act, in respect of assessments made after the coming into force of the amending Act, namely after 1-2-1955. 5. We would accordingly answer the question in the negative and say that the Tribunal should not have followed the previous decisions of this Court referred to. There will be no order for costs, as there is no appearance for the other side. Das, J. 7. I agree.