JUDGMENT P. SHANMUGAM, J. – Petitioners are manufacturers of tread rubber. O.P. No. 15801 of 1987 is filed by the Association of Tread Rubber Manufacturers. 2. In all these original petitions they seek an order to declare that they continue to have the concessional rate of sales tax. They are also seeking to quash the circulars 19 of 1997 dated March 20, 1997 of the Board of Revenue and the Government dated April 5, 1993. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these original petitions are as follows : Petitioners are running small-scale industrial units manufacturing tread rubber. The State Government (Industries Department) had issued an order in G.O. Ms. No.124/88/ID dated August 31, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the first notification") granting certain concessions to promote rubber industries which are as follows : (1) Rubber to be used for new industries in Kerala will be exempted from levy of purchase tax; 11 (2) An additional capital subsidy of 5 per cent will be given to new rubber industries to be set up in Kerala, (3) Sales tax on finished rubber goods produced from factories in Kerala will be reduced to 3 per cent. 4. Subsequently Government (Taxes Department) issued a Notification G.O. (P) No. 47/90/TD, dated March 27, 1990 in exercise of the power conferred under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (appended to this judgment). This notification (hereinafter referred to as "the second notification") is not challenged in these original petitions. By this notification it was ordered that the reduction in the rate of tax from 10 per cent to 3 per cent will be available only for a period of two years from the date on which such units cease to entitle the exemption granted as per earlier two Notifications, viz. S.R.O. No. 968/80 and S.R.O. No. 654/89. In other words the concessions that were originally granted can be ex tended for a further maximum period of two years for rubber products. If the original exemption is for a period of five years, that can be extended for another two years and not beyond that. 5. This position has been reiterated in the circulars issued by the Government dated April 5, 1993 and the Board dated March 20, 1997 after referring to the earlier orders. If the original exemption is for a period of five years, that can be extended for another two years and not beyond that. 5. This position has been reiterated in the circulars issued by the Government dated April 5, 1993 and the Board dated March 20, 1997 after referring to the earlier orders. The Government circular dated April 5, 1993 clearly stated the Government's stand as follows : "Now Government clarify that apart from the above concession which still exist, they have no intention to allow any more concession to rubber based industries." 6. The contention on behalf of the petitioners can be summarised as follows : The benefits granted in G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated August 31, 1988 are still being continued and are in force. This order has not been superseded by the subsequent Notification in S.R.O. No. 554/90. It is further submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID was upheld be this Court holding that it is deemed to have been issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Therefore the subsequent Notification S.R.O. No. 554/90 which is conflict with the earlier notification unless superseded cannot be held to be valid. The explanatory note to S.R.O. No. 554/90 makes it clear that it was to give effect to G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/I,D dated August 31, 1988. Hence the Notification S.R.O. No. 554/90 is redundant and unnecessary. All the tread rubber manufacturers were assessed by applying the first notification and they were taxed only at 3 per cent. All of them proceeded on the premises that concession in the first notification governed the field. They have not also collected more than the said amount. Therefore, it will be inequitable to compel them to pay tax at higher rate. In this context reference is made to a decision of the Madras High Court in Sun Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 80 STC 1. A Division Bench held that the notification withdrawing the concession lacked clarity and therefore there is no withdrawal in the eye of law. 7. On behalf of the Secretary, Board of Revenue, a statement has been filed. According to him, the first G.O. was intended to extend the benefits only to new industrial units. A Division Bench held that the notification withdrawing the concession lacked clarity and therefore there is no withdrawal in the eye of law. 7. On behalf of the Secretary, Board of Revenue, a statement has been filed. According to him, the first G.O. was intended to extend the benefits only to new industrial units. The Government order cannot be deemed to have intended the reduction in the rate to apply to rubber products produced by all factories in Kerala as giving such an interpretation would make the G.O. violation of article 301 of the Constitution of India as rubber products brought from outside the State would be subject to higher rate of tax. It is further contended that even though the Notification S.R.O. No. 554/90 did not specifically mention that it was being issued in supersession of G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID. It was in effect superseded. In G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID it is stated that the necessary notification for statutory validation of the concession would be issued separately by the Taxes Department According to them, they have applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills' case [1987] 65 STC 1. 8. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the first notification continues in force or is it superseded by the second notification. The preamble portion of the order, G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated August 31, 1988 states that Government wanted to encourage and induce more rubber based industries in Kerala. In that view, they, after considering the suggestions of manufacturers and experts decided to extend the concessions. It is very clear from the order that the concessions were meant for the new industries set up in Kerala. It is obvious that a concession has relevance to the particular object, i.e., encouragement or promotion of new industries. Any such concession given to a particular industry cannot be a permanent feature as Government order itself indicated in clear terms. The concession and reliefs were intended to new entrepreneurs for starting rubber industries. In other words that class of persons, viz., those who have set up new industries cannot continue to be in that class for enjoying the benefits for ever. The concession and reliefs were intended to new entrepreneurs for starting rubber industries. In other words that class of persons, viz., those who have set up new industries cannot continue to be in that class for enjoying the benefits for ever. By the second notification it is clearly stated that the concession that is granted for the new industries will continue for two years from the expiry of concession available from S.R.O. No. 968/80 and S.R.O. No. 654/89. Thus after initially granted exemption in the years 1980 and 1989 another period of two years exemption was granted to the newly set up rubber based industries. The explanatory note is referable only to the first notification. Para 2 of the second notification while stating that the rate of tax is 3 per cent for the sale of rubber products it shall be continued only for a further period of two years. There is no ambiguity or lack of clarity if we can keep the back-ground of these concessions in mind. In the light of such categorical order of the Government it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the concessions granted in the year 1988 G.O. is to continue for ever. As rightly pointed out by learned Government Pleader that the grant of any such concession would lead to discrimination. 9. The Government is empowered under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to cancel or vary any notification. The first notification was deemed to have been issued under section 10 of the Act. In this context reference can be made to observation of their Lordships in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC) : "............. It is a well-settled principle of law that where the authority making an order has power conferred upon it by statute to make an order made by it an order is made without indicating the provision under which it is made, the order would be deemed to have been made under the provision enabling the making of it." The second notification by invoking the power under section 10 of the Act modified the first notification. All the petitioners are fully aware of the position that the first notification was intended for the new industries and whereas the second notification had limited that period. In any event petitioners had received notice of the circulars. All the petitioners are fully aware of the position that the first notification was intended for the new industries and whereas the second notification had limited that period. In any event petitioners had received notice of the circulars. In similar circumstances repelling the claims of continued exemption the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills' case [1987] 65 STC 1 held as follows : "It is not disputed that the first order, namely, the one dated April 11, 1979, gave more of tax exemption than the second one. The second notification withdrew the exemption relating to purchase tax and confined the exemption from sales tax to the limit specified in the proviso of the notification. All parties before us who in response to the order of April 11, 1979 set up their industries prior to October 21, 1980, within the State of Kerala would thus be entitled to the exemption extended and/or promised under that order. Such exemption would continue for the full period of five years from the date they started production. New industries set up after October 21, 1980, obviously would not be entitled to that benefit as they had notice of the curtailment in the exemption before they came to set up their industries." In Thamarappally Rubber Products v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1994] 94 STC 178 (Ker) the import of the second notification was not considered and will not apply to this case. 10. Therefore, the subsequent notification is deemed to have superseded the first notification and limited the concession only to a maximum period of seven years. All other interpretations would be violative of articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India. For the above reasons 1 do not find any grounds warranting interference with the impugned circulars. They are valid and enforceable and are binding. The petitioners are not entitled for the declaration. All the concessions have to be made in pursuance to and applying the second notification and circulars. Accordingly the original petitions are dismissed. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 28372 of 1997 and 10940 of 1998 in O.P. No. 15801 of 1997 dismissed. Petitions dismissed.