JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, C.J. - This revision has been filed under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act raising the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment for the period October 26, 1973 to November 13, 1974 under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act was made on June 6, 1981 by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle (3), Jaipur and the turnover of Rs. 25,29,126, 7,20,523 and 32,100 in respect of inter-State sale of pulses was subject to tax at 2 per cent. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which was partly allowed and it was contended that the rate of tax on sale of pulses is payable at 1 per cent because the notification dated March 9, 1970 was superseded by notification dated April 26, 1972 which was rescinded by notification dated May 9, 1972 and accordingly the notification dated March 9, 1970 was revived and as such the tax is payable at 1 per cent. This contention was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee challenged this order before the Board of Revenue under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the matter was subsequently transferred to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the inter-State sale of pulses was exempt from tax by virtue of section 4(1) of the State Act read with section 8(2A) of the Central Act and the subsequent amendments in the local laws were not applicable to inter-State sale and alternatively the notification dated March 9, 1970, which has prescribed the rates of tax at 1 per cent is revived because the said notification was superseded by notification dated April 26, 1972. The notification dated April 26, 1972 was rescinded by notification dated May 9, 1972 and once a notification has been rescinded the effect would be, as if it was not in existence as a result of which the operative notification would be of March 9, 1970. The Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notification dated March 9, 1970 had been superseded and it could not have been revived automatically in the absence of specific provision to that effect. The Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notification dated March 9, 1970 had been superseded and it could not have been revived automatically in the absence of specific provision to that effect. This decision was given on the basis of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Mahesh Industries v. Union of India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 decided on March 19, 1986) and Sanganer Dal & Flour Mills (S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 57 of 1987) decided on July 10, 1987. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notification dated March 9, 1970 has been revived because of the repeal of notification dated April 26, 1972 by notification dated May 9, 1972 and the provisions of General Clauses Act are not applicable in view of the judgment of the apex Court in State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213 and of the Karnataka High Court in Jyothi Home Industries v. State of Karnataka [1987] 64 STC 208. It is submitted that in view of these decisions, the decisions given in the cases of Mahesh Industries (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 decided on March 19, 1986) and Sanganer Dal & Flour Mills (S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 57 of 1987 decided on July 10, 1987) require reconsideration. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 (Mahesh Industries v. Union of India) it was held by this Court that the notification which has been superseded is not revived in view of the provisions of section 7 of the General Clauses Act, which lays down that in any Central Act or Regulation, after commencement of the said Act it shall be necessary for the purposes of reviving either wholly or partially, any enactment wholly or partially repealed expressly to state that purpose. This judgment was followed by this Court in Sanganer Dal and Flour Mills' case S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 57 of 1987 decided on July 10, 1987 where again relying upon the decision of Mahesh Industries v. Union of India S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 decided on March 19, 1986 it was held that the notification dated March 9, 1970 is not revived. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of Mahesh Industries S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149 of 1973 decided on March 19, 1986 is incorrect and requires reconsideration, was also not accepted. It was held that there is nothing to indicate that the earlier notification remained suspended. Even in the case of this very assessee in Sales Tax Revision No. 14 of 1989 decided on November 26, 1991 it was held that the notification dated March 9, 1970 is not revived and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. In State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213 it was held by the apex Court that the word, "supersession of previous notification" is used to mean that all that was done to repeal and replace the previous notifications by new notifications. By repealing and replacing the previous notifications by other notifications, the result was to wipe out any liability accrued under previous notifications. The matter with regard to the application of tax at the relevant point of time is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in International Cotton Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1975] 35 STC 1 and following the same it is held that the subsequent amendment in the Schedule of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act shall be applicable to Central Sales Tax Act and the law as prevailing at the relevant time in the State will have to be seen for the purpose of section 8(2A) of Central Sales Tax Act. In Jyoti Home Industries v. State of Karnataka [1987] 64 STC 208 (Kar), it was held that each of the three notifications, one dated March 31, 1983 and the notifications Nos. 1 and 2 having been superseded by the successive notification, the charge under section 3(1) of 1979 Act cannot be given effect for any period prior to October 24, 1984. From a perusal of the aforesaid two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be evident that the effect is that a notification could be given effect prospectively and in the context of present notifications, the notification dated March 9, 1970 was superseded by notification dated April 26, 1972. The said notification, therefore, remained operative till April 25, 1972. From April 26, 1972 the notification dated April 26, 1972 became effective and the said notification was rescinded on May 9, 1972. The said notification, therefore, remained operative till April 25, 1972. From April 26, 1972 the notification dated April 26, 1972 became effective and the said notification was rescinded on May 9, 1972. The effect of rescinding the said notification was that the notification dated April 26, 1972 shall not be continued after May 9, 1972. Normally, when a notification is superseded by another notification, the field is occupied by the later notification and the word supersession is used to notify the effect from the date of supersession. A notification may be rescinded without superseding that notification, if the power under that particular enactment is not to be exercised henceforth, but the effect of the notification which rescinds any notification cannot be to revive the earlier notification. If a notification is declared invalid by any competent court then it is possible to consider that the earlier notification comes into operation but when the State Government exercises its power to rescind any notification then the only interpretation which could be taken in the taxing statute will be that the notification which has been rescinded will no longer thereafter be effective. It cannot be interpreted to revive the superseded notification. The view which has been taken by this Court does not require consideration and there being no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition has no force and the petitioner is liable to make payment of tax on the inter-State sale of pulses at the rate of 2 per cent and also the interest under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act in accordance with the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1981] 48 STC 466. For the reasons discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.