RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THESE two sales-tax revision petitions are presented under S. 23 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') by a registered dealer against the orders of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal confirming the orders of the appellate and Assessing authorities. The only question of law that arises for consideration in these two revision petitions is as follows: -"whether the notification issued under Sec. 8a of the Act exempting the purchase turn-over of old gold and silver articles from the levy of sales tax under S. 6 of the Act became invalid with effect from 1-7-1972 with effect from which date sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 was amended enhancing the rate of tax payable on general goods from 3 to 31/2% ?" ( 2 ) THE petitioner is engaged in purchasing old gold and silver articles and manufacturing gold and silver jewellery out of it and selling them, for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 the petitioner furnished his returns. During the relevant years he had purchased old gold and silver articles from individuals who were not liable to pay sales Tax under the, Act. Thereafter the assessee prepared gold and silver jewellery out of the gold articles so purchased and had sold the said jewels. According to the assessee he was exempt from payment of sales tax under S. 6 of the act by virtue of a notification issued under S. 8a of the Act. The Commercial tax Officer assessed the assessee both under Section 5 (1.) and 6 of the Act at 31/2% which was the rate prevailing during the relevant period. Aggrieved by the said orders the assessee preferred appeals to the assistant Commissioner of Commercial tax (Appeals) Mangalore. His appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred second appeals before the Karnataka Appellate tribunal. By common order dated 7-8-78 the "tribunal confirmed the assessment made by the assessing authority both under Sec. 5 (1) and 6 of the Act. However, the Tribunal reduced the purchase tax from 31/2% to 1% on the ground that the old gold and silver articles purchased by the assessee constituted bullion. By common order dated 7-8-78 the "tribunal confirmed the assessment made by the assessing authority both under Sec. 5 (1) and 6 of the Act. However, the Tribunal reduced the purchase tax from 31/2% to 1% on the ground that the old gold and silver articles purchased by the assessee constituted bullion. ( 3 ) SRI K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that in view of the notification issued by the State government under Sec. 8a of the Act on 10-9-70 the assessee was not liable to pay tax under Sec. 6 of the Act on the purchase turnover of articles of gold and silver. The said notification reads:"in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka act 25 of 1957), the Government of karnataka hereby exempts with effect from the 1st day of October 1970, the tax payable under Sec. 6 of the said Act on the purchases of articles of gold and or silver (whether set with precious stones or not) by a manufacturer of such articles subject to the condition that the said manufacturer proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that he has paid the tax payable either under sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 5 of the said Act on articles of gold and silver (whether set with precious stones or not) manufactured out of the said articles so purchased by him. " ( 4 ) S. 8a of the, Act confers power on the State Government to reduce or exempt the tax payable under the act by issue of a notification. The learned Counsel for the assessee therefore contended, that in view of the above notification the orders of the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority holding that the assessee was liable to tax under Sec 6 of the Act was unsustainable. ( 5 ) AS can be seen from the order of the Tribunal in coming to the con elusion that the aforesaid notificatior. issued under Sec. 8a of the Act was not available to the assessee, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this court in Srisailappa v. Commercial tax Officer, 36 STC 223 = (1975) 2 Kar. L. J. 190. The view taken by the tribunal is in conformity with the ratio of the said decision. issued under Sec. 8a of the Act was not available to the assessee, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this court in Srisailappa v. Commercial tax Officer, 36 STC 223 = (1975) 2 Kar. L. J. 190. The view taken by the tribunal is in conformity with the ratio of the said decision. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the assessee however contended that the view taken by a single judge of this court in the said case is erroneous. In the said case the question for consideration was, whether the reduced rate at 4% in respect of dyes fixed by virtue of a notification issued by the state Government under Sec. 8a of the act continued to be in force after the amendment of the Act raising the sales tax payable on dyes from 6 percent to 8 percent. From the facts set out in the judgment it is seen that prior to 10-9-1970 the sales tax payable on the turnover pertaining to dyes was 6%, vide entry 97 of the second Schedule to the Act. The State government issued a notification dated 10-9-70 under S. 8a of the Act by which the sales tax payable on the turnover relating to dyea was reduced to 4%. By Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1974 which came into force with effect from 1-4-1974, the sales tax payable on the turnover relating to dyes was enhanced from 6% to 8 %. Thereafter the State Government issued another Notification dated 7-6-74 under Section 8a of the Act purporting to reduce the tax payable on the turnover relating to dyes to 4% with effect from 1-7-74. Rejecting the claim of the assesses therein that the reduced rate of 4% was available even during the period from 1-4-1971 to 1-7-74 it was held, that as the legislature which was the highest legislative body amended the Act, and declared that on and after 1-4-1974 the turnover relating to dyes would be subjected to a tax at a higher rate at 8% instead of the pre-existing rate of 6%, the notification issued by the State government under S. 8a of the Act became ineffective with effect from 1st april 1974 on the ground that it was inconsistent with the amending Act. Applying the ratio of the said decision the Tribunal held that the notification dated 10-9-70 exempting the tax on purchase turnover of old gold and silver articles, issued under S. 8a of the act also became ineffective with effect from 1st July 1972. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that the view taken in Srishailappa's case (1) is erroneous. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 8a of the Act confers power on the State Government either to reduce the rate of tax payable on any goods under the Act or to exempt the tax payable on any specified goods under the Act by the issue of a notification to that effect. Sub-section (3) of Section 8a confers powers on the State Government to cancel or vary a notification issued under sub-sec. (1) by the issue of a notification. Therefore a notification issued under S. 8a (1) of the Act either reducing the rate of tax or exempting the tax payable, on any specified goods continues to be in force until it is modified or cancelled by the State Government by a notification issued under Sub-sec. (3) of S. 8a. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the single Judge in Srishailappa's case (1) that a notification issued under S. 8a (1) becomes invalid by the enhancement of rate of tax on the goods specified in the notification by any subsequent amending Act on the ground of inconsistency. In our view such a notification does not in any way become inconsistent, wiih the provisions of the Act by the mere enhancement of the rate of tax by an amendment made subsequent to the issue of a notification unless the amending Act clearly shows that it should be effective, notwithstanding a notification already issued under S. 8a of the Act or that it took away the power of the State Government under S. 8a of the Act, generally or in respect of such items. There is nothing in the amending Act 5 of 1972 which could be considered a,s having affected the validity of the notification issued under S. 8a of the Act. We hold that the view taken by the Single Judge in Srishailappa's case (1) is wrong and we over-rule the said decision. There is nothing in the amending Act 5 of 1972 which could be considered a,s having affected the validity of the notification issued under S. 8a of the Act. We hold that the view taken by the Single Judge in Srishailappa's case (1) is wrong and we over-rule the said decision. ( 8 ) IN conclusion we hold that the notification dated 10-9-1970 issued by the state Government in exercise of its power under S. 3a of the Act exempting the purchase turnover of old gold and silver articles from the levy of tax under S. 6 of the Act was not in any way affected by the amending Act 5 of 1972 and continued to be in force. ( 9 ) AS the assessee was clearly entitled to the benefit of exemption granted under the notification dated 10-9-1970, his turnover could not be brought to tax under S. 6 of the Act. Therefore the orders of assessment levying tax on the purchase turnover of assessee under S. 6 of the Act cannot be sustained, consesequently the orders of the first and second appellate authorities confirming the said orders also cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid we make the following: - order: The orders of the Appellate tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) Mangalore and of the assessing Authority, in so far these orders subjected the assessee to tax under S. 6 of the Act are set aside. No costs. --- *** --- .