Judgment K.C. Agrawal, CJ.-Ram Bharosi Lal Ramesh Chand was a partnership firm having four partners. Three of them retired. On their retirement, only one partner--Munna Lal was left. He continued to carry on the business which was started by the firm in 1970-71. He was allowed the benefit of Section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and forms S.T. 17A were issued to him. The assessing authority did not accept the claim being granted benefit of Section 5CC and levied the tax on the purchases of raw material amounting to Rs. 18,160 at 1 per cent being the difference between Section 5CC and SC and also imposed the penalty under Section 16(1) (e). 2. The said levy of tax and imposition of penalty were disputed by the assessee-Munna Lal in appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals II), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur. The appeal was allowed on the finding that the unit being the same as it was when the exemption under Section 5CC was granted, Munna Lal was entitled to get the same. As a result whereof , the levy of tax and imposition of penalty were quashed. The department went in revision before the single Member of the Board of Revenue. The revision was dismissed. The findings of the learned single Member were against the Revenue. The relevant portion is given below: “This matter had come up before me and I had held in 1980 RRD NUC 288 that the concession granted under Section 5CC read with the notification dated July 1, 1970, would be available to new units irrespective of change of ownership and the interpretation sought to be given by the department would defeat the very purpose for which the provision was made. In the present case, the complete ownership has also not changed and there is no reason any (it seems to be a typographic error for the word ‘why’) the concession should not be continued during the period prescribed in law.” 3. Being dissatisfied with the findings, the assessing authority preferred D.B. appeal which was allowed and was decided in favour of the Revenue. Being dissatisfied with the findings, the assessing authority preferred D.B. appeal which was allowed and was decided in favour of the Revenue. The view of the Division Bench was that the assessee-respondent Vishambhar Dayal Munna Lal being a different legal entity from Ram Baroshi Lal Ramesh Chand, is not entitled as of right to exemption on sales to or purchases by it of any raw material for the manufacture of goods for sale within the State. The view further of the Division Bench was that the present respondent cannot be treated as “new unit” for the purpose of Section 5CC. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, the present revision has been preferred. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The question that arose is whether after addition of the explanation, the petitioner could continue to be treated as new unit for the purpose of Section 5CC. The explanation added was as under: “For the purpose of this notification, ‘new unit’ means factory or workshop using machinery or substantial parts thereof not already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in Rajasthan (under the same or changed ownership), but does not include any factory or workshop established on the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods or any addition to or extension of an existing factory or workshop for manufacturing the same goods.” 7. Fromthe explanation, it is clear that in a case of changed ownership, the unit would continue to be treated as it was before. In the instant case, there were four partners at the initial stage when the registration was granted, but subsequently, on three partners going out of business, it was continued by one of them. The purpose of granting of benefit under Section 5CC was to encourage production of the manufacturing goods in the factory or workshop and that purpose could be achieved when the intention was fully given effect to by taking the view that the factory or workshop was the new unit to be entitled to the benefit of Section 5CC. It could not be considered that on some of the partners going out of business and new having been taken in their place, the new business had been started to which benefit of Section 5CC was not available. 8. In Malabar Fisheries Co. It could not be considered that on some of the partners going out of business and new having been taken in their place, the new business had been started to which benefit of Section 5CC was not available. 8. In Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC) it was said: “A partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm’s property or the firm’s assets all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners have a joint or common interest. It cannot, therefore, be said that, upon dissolution, the firm’s rights in the partnership assets are extinguished. It is the partners who own jointly or in common the assets of the partnership and, therefore, the consequence of the distribution, division or allotment of assets to the partners which flows upon dissolution after discharge of liabilities is nothing but a mutual adjustment of rights between partners and there is no question of any extinguishment of the firm’s rights in the partnership assets amounting to a transfer of assets within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no transfer of assets involved even in the sense of any extinguishment of the firm’s rights in the partnership assets when distribution takes place upon dissolution.” 9. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I hold that on the old partners going out of business, the dissolution of firm takes place, but entitlement of getting the benefit of Section 5CC continues. 10. This point arose before the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax vs. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries [1983] 53 STC 388. Dealing with Section 4-A which was more or less like the same Section 5CC, the learned single Judge held that the intention behind Section 4-A was kept into account in its interpretation. It would be found that Section 4-A was to promote industrial development in the State. That concession given in the levy of tax making purchases. 11. TheErgen Plastic Industries vs. State of Rajasthan [1984] 57 STC 77 (Raj) relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent is distinguishable. It would be found that Section 4-A was to promote industrial development in the State. That concession given in the levy of tax making purchases. 11. TheErgen Plastic Industries vs. State of Rajasthan [1984] 57 STC 77 (Raj) relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent is distinguishable. Moreover, the observations made by the learned single Judge to the effect “The registered partnership firm has a different legal entity, vis-a-vis the proprietary firm” run contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court quoted above. 12. Theexplanation added in 1986 which is being relied upon by the petitioner in this case is only explanatory and, as such, it could not be considered to be prospective. It became a part and parcel of the enactment. It was added to clarify something which was hidden in Section 5CC. Therefore, it was retrospective in operation and could apply to the cases pending before the sales tax authorities. An explanation is to be read to harmonise with and clear up ambiguity in the section. An explanation is added more than often to allay groundless apprehensions. 13. In theresult, the revision succeeds and is allowed and the order dated April 29, 1985, of the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue is set aside and the orders dated October 8, 1980 of the single Member of the Board of Revenue and dated July 6, 1976, of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals II), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, are restored. The petitioner will be entitled to the cost which is fixed at Rs. 500.