JUDGMENT MRS. K. K. USHA, J. – This tax revision case is at the instance of the assessee. Relevant assessment year is 1994-95. The assessee is a manufacturer of plastic cups used for the purpose of collecting latex. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the exemption from tax granted to latex collection plastic cup being an agricultural implement as per the amendment to S.R.O. No. 1727 of 1993 dated November 4, 1993 brought in by S.R.O. No. 326 of 1995 dated May 14, 1995 has any application for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention. 2. S.R.O. No. 1727 of 1993 dated November 4, 1993 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 granted exemption in respect of the tax payable under the Sales Tax Act on the turnover of sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods mentioned in Schedule 11. Under Schedule II serial No. 1 is agricultural implements worked by hand, namely : (1) Alavangoos, etc., 37 items are shown as agricultural implements under the above notification. Thereafter by S.R.O. No. 326/95 dated May 14, 1995 one more item was added after item No. 37 as latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl. The notification reads as follows "Amendment to S.R.O. No. 1727/93 S.R.O. No. 326 of 1995. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on turnover of sale or purchase of 'latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl' and make the following amendment to Notification I No. G.O. (P) 153/93/TD dated 3rd November, 1993 published as S.R.O. No. 1727 of 1993 in Kerala Gazette, Extraordinary No. 1120 dated 4th November, 1993, namely :- AMENDMENT. - In Schedule II to the said notification, under columns (1) and (2), to serial No. 1, after item 37, the following shall be inserted namely : '38. Latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl.' Explanatory Note. - In Schedule II to the said notification, under columns (1) and (2), to serial No. 1, after item 37, the following shall be inserted namely : '38. Latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl.' Explanatory Note. - (This does not form part of Notification but is intended to indicate its general purport.) Government have decided to exempt latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl from payment of tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act treating it as an agricultural implement. The notification is intended to achieve the above object." 3. It is the contention of the assessee that the above amendment has got retrospective effect, since it is clarificatory in nature. In support of the proposition that an amendment which is explanatory/clarificatory in nature will have retrospective effect the learned counsel relied several decisions including in K. G. Keshava Bhat v. State of Kerala (1999) 7 KTR 128 (Ker), National Timber Mart v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1979] 44 STC 205 (All.) and Manickam and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1977] 39 STC 12 (SC). 4. The question whether an amendment is clarificatory or explanatory in nature will depend upon the wording of the notification. In this case the original notification dated November 4, 1993 granted exemption to agricultural implements worked by hand. The notification itself gave 37 items of such implements. The wording of the notification was not agricultural implements worked by hand including (1) Alavangoos, etc., on the other hand, the wording was agricultural implements worked by hand namely, (1) Alavangoos, etc. It would show that the intention was to grant exemption to the 37 types of agricultural implements worked by hand. When we come to the amendment dated May 14, 1995 it is seen that one more item is added after item No. 37 as latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl. The explanatory note to the amendment is also of no help to the assessee. The note shows Government had decided to grant exemption to this particular item also from payment of tax treating it as an agricultural implement. 4. From the wording of the notification it is not possible to hold that the amendment was clarificatory or explanatory in nature. Three decisions relied on by the learned counsel turned on the wording of the amendment. 4. From the wording of the notification it is not possible to hold that the amendment was clarificatory or explanatory in nature. Three decisions relied on by the learned counsel turned on the wording of the amendment. Therefore, they are of no help to support the contention put forward by the assessee in this case. Yet another decision relied on by the learned counsel is Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited [1985] 58 STC 333 (Ker). The question arose therein was whether agricultural sprayers used for prevention of pests is an agricultural implement and therefore exempt from tax. The argument was raised on the basis of a circular issued by the Board of Revenue enumerating certain items which could be regarded as agricultural implements. The statutory backing or force of law of a circular itself was under doubt. In any view of the matter it was held that the list was not exhaustive and a sprayer is also an agricultural implement. The wording of the circular is not discernible from the judgment. But in the present case the latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl was added to the several items by way of an amendment in 1995 which would clearly show that it would not have been exempt from tax but for the amendment. While interpreting the statute the principle that courts have no power to legislate has to be taken care of as was observed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal AIR 1992 SC 96 . If the amendment had to be given retrospective effect, there was no difficulty to make necessary provision in the notification itself. Such a provision being absent it is not for this Court to hold that the amendment has retrospective effect. 5. We are of the view that the amendment of the year 1995 is neither clarificatory nor explanatory in nature. The assessee is, therefore, not entitled to exemption from tax in respect of latex collection plastic cup for the assessment year 1994-95. The tax revision case, therefore, stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.