JUDGMENT H. L. AGRAWAL, C.J. and S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - Both these writ applications are heard together as the parties are same and the facts and points of law involved in both of them are common. O.J.C. No. 1551 of 1980 relates to the period 1973-74 and O.J.C. No. 1552 of 1980 relates to the period 1974-75. 2. The only point raised by the petitioners in these writ applications is as to whether the Notification dated 5th July, 1976 (annexure-3), issued by the State Government in the Finance Department in exercise of the powers under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, rescinding the earlier Notification dated 8th December, 1966 (annexure-1), with retrospective effect, namely, with effect from 1st April, 1973, can be sustained. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered dealer carrying on business in various articles such as oil-seeds and other seasonal goods in the district of Kalahandi. For the years 1973-74 and 1974-75, he had claimed exemption from levy of central sales tax on the basis of the Notification dated 8th December, 1966 (annexure-1), by which it was provided that no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act would be payable by a dealer having its place of business in the State with respect to sale of such goods on which tax has already been levied and collected under section 5(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. This notification was governing the field until it was held to be invalid by this Court in the case of Orissa Hides Trading Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur III Circle [1975] 35 STC 232. Since the orders of assessment in these cases were passed after the above decision, he was denied the benefit of the exemption. Subsequently, this decision was upset by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, East Circle [1980] 46 STC 384. But, in the meantime, the State Government issued the impugned notification (annexure-3). It is submitted that if the retrospective operation of annexure-3 with effect from 1st April, 1973, is withdrawn, then petitioner No. 1 will be liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act for the present transactions. But, in the meantime, the State Government issued the impugned notification (annexure-3). It is submitted that if the retrospective operation of annexure-3 with effect from 1st April, 1973, is withdrawn, then petitioner No. 1 will be liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act for the present transactions. It is also submitted that the retrospective application of the notification is invalid in law, as the petitioner had adjusted the business dealings under the impression of the existence of the exemption and if it is withdrawn from a back date, it will upset his position. 4. It is well-settled that the power to legislate with retrospective effect is not exercisable by a delegate unless specifically empowered by some statute. Nothing has been brought to our notice that such power was conferred upon the State Government to issue the notification in question (annexure-3) from a retrospective date. In that view of the matter, we allow the writ applications and hold that the said notification (annexure-3) shall have its effect only from the date of its publication in the Gazette, i.e., 5th July, 1976. Consequently, the impugned orders of assessment (annexure-2 to each of the writ applications) are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 1) to make fresh assessments in view of our decision with respect to the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period in question. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ applications allowed.