JUDGMENT N. K. SODHI, J. - Counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of law and fact arise in these two Writ Petitions Nos. 9418 and 9719 of 1999 and that the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 9418 of 1999 will govern the other case as well. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 9418 of 1999. Challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated February 17, 1999 published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) on February 18, 1999 under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act") whereby Schedule "B" was amended retrospectively with effect from September 8, 1998. Section 6 of the Act provides that no tax shall be payable on the sale of goods specified in the first column of Schedule "B" subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof and no dealer is required to charge sales tax on the sale of goods which are declared tax-free from time to time. Sub-section (2) of this section gives power to the State Government to amend the schedule by notification by giving not less than twenty days notice of its intention to do so. By the impugned notification in item No. 34 under the heading "D-Power Implements" sub-item No. (9) and the entries relating thereto were omitted with effect from September 8, 1998. In other words, items which were tax-free were withdrawn from Schedule "B" retrospectively with effect from September 8, 1998 and brought to tax with effect from that date. This, in our view, is impermissible. A notification withdrawing tax-free items could operate only with effect from the date when it was published and not from any date prior thereto. Reference in this regard may be made to M. C. Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer, Kesinga [1987] 64 STC 298 (Orissa), Dhannilal Labhchand v. Sales Tax Officer, Seoni [1988] 69 STC 117 (MP), Kitchen Aid v. State of M.P. [1998] 110 STC 109 (MP) and Baldev Raj Hari Kishan v. State of Punjab [1999] 114 STC 223 (P&H). In this view of the matter, the impugned notification is quashed only to the extent it is retrospective in operation. In this view of the matter, the impugned notification is quashed only to the extent it is retrospective in operation. It is, however, made clear that the notification shall be operative with effect from the date on which it was published in the official gazette, i.e., February 18, 1999. Ordered accordingly.