Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—These two revision petitions raise a short but interesting question of law. 2. Whether the footwears upto the cost of Rs. 20/- are exempted from sales tax, or not and whether the condition mentioned in the relevant notification for such exemption is satisfied or not, is the question. Further question which has been raised by the assessee in the present revision petitions is that whether the assessing authority could impose the tax on the assessee denying such exemption by invoking powers under Sec. 17 of the RST Act, 1954, which pertains to mistake apparent on the face of the record. 3. The assessee purchased shoes and chappals, i.e. footwears, of value of Rs. 20/- or less per pair from various manufacturers of Agra and Kanpur of Uttar Pradesh under the bills and sold them within the State of Rajasthan claiming exemption from sales tax under the notifications in this regard, which were issued from time to time, namely on 08.03.1988 (S. No. 713 of 15 J.K. Jain’s Book, Vol. 2), on 07.11.1988 (S.No. 736) and on 11.07.1990 (S.No. 819). The said notification dt. 11.07.1990 (S.No. 819) reads as under: ß,l-vks- 144-&jk-fo-d- vf/kfu;e] 1954 dh /kkjk 4(2) }kjk iznÙk ÓkfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj (1) ,rn~}kjk 20@& #i;s ewY; rd ds lHkh izdkj ds twrs o pIiysa tks y?kq m|ksx }kjk fofufeZr (;k) foif.kr fd;s x;s gksa] dks dj ls NwV nsrh gSA fVIi.kh&laa= vkSj eÓkhujh esa #i;s 35 yk[k rd iwath fofu/kku j[kus okys fdlh Hkh m|ksx dks y?kq m|ksx le>k tkosxkA ;g 27 twu] 1990 dks vkSj ls izo`Ùk gksxhAÞ The above notifications were superseded further by notification dt. 02.12.1992 (S.No. 889) which was given retrospective effect from 27.06.1990. The said notification reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 4(2), RST Act, 1954, and in supersession of this Deptt. Notfn. No. F.4(40)FD Gr.IV/88-57 dt. 11.07.1990, as amended from time to time (S.No. 819), the State Govt. [.1.], hereby exempts from tax to sale of all kinds of footwear, manufactured or marketed by a Small Scale Industry upto the value of Rs. 20/-, on the condition that any tax charged or collected shall be paid to the State Govt. and if paid to the State Govt. it shall not be refunded. Explanation.—Any industry with capital investment in plant and machinery upto [Rs. 20/-, on the condition that any tax charged or collected shall be paid to the State Govt. and if paid to the State Govt. it shall not be refunded. Explanation.—Any industry with capital investment in plant and machinery upto [Rs. 60.00 lacs] shall be deemed to be a Small Scale Industry. It shall take effect on and from 27.06.1990.” 4. The assessment period in question involved in these two revision petitions are AY 1989-90 (from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1990) and AY 1990-91 (from 01.04.1990 to 31.03.1991), therefore, the aforesaid two notifications will govern the assessment period. 5. The assessing authority, on an audit objection in the case of the assessee, invoked the powers under Sec. 17 of the Act and vide order dt. 27.02.1993 holding that since the assessee did not produce the certificate of registration of the seller units as SSI units (Small Scale Industry Certificate), therefore, the condition of the notification exempting these footwears was not satisfied by the assessee and he was liable to pay the tax on sales made by him within the State. The first appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt. 23.06.1993. However, the second appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Tax Board came to be allowed in favour of the Revenue vide order dt. 18.03.1996 and the Tax Board held that in the absence of the certificate of the selling units being SSI Units, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption, and therefore, tax imposed by the assessing authority was justified. The assessee filed two revision petitions before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal in the year 1996. The said Tribunal was constituted under Article 323-B of the Constitution of India and the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was vested in the said Tribunal, and therefore, the said revision petitions were filed before’ the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. However, there was a difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal who constituted that Tribunal and vide the order dt. 01.10.1997, the matter was directed to be listed before the larger bench comprising of three members. However, before the said matters could be taken up by the larger bench of the Tribunal, the said Tribunal itself came to be abolished and since those revision petitions remained undecided, they stood transferred to this Court upon repeal of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal in the year 1999. However, before the said matters could be taken up by the larger bench of the Tribunal, the said Tribunal itself came to be abolished and since those revision petitions remained undecided, they stood transferred to this Court upon repeal of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal in the year 1999. Thus, the two revision petitions, renumbered as STR No. 629/1999 (Old RTT STR No. 336/1996) and STR No. 628/1999 (Old RTT STR No. 335/1996) came up for hearing before this Court today and the arguments of the learned counsels were heard at length. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that firstly there was no condition in the notification that the assessee was under an obligation to produce the SSI Certificate before the assessing authority to the effect that such selling dealers were registered as SSI units. Secondly, he submitted that the sales bills of Agra and Kanpur dealers produced before the assessing authority during the course of original assessment proceedings, which have also been placed on the record of these revision petitions as Annex.N5, clearly bear an endorsement on these bills, viz. “Certified All Goods Are Hand Made”. He thus submits that all these cheap footwears being manufactured in Agra and Kanpur in household industries or cottage industries, are handmade and since there is no plant and machinery installed, there is no question of investment in plant and machinery much less, as big investment as Rs. 35 lacs or Rs. 60 lacs, which take such units out of the ambit and scope of small scale industries. He urged that these units may not be even registered with the Industries Department of their respective State, therefore, there is no question of obtaining of SSI Certificate from the Industries Department of their State so as to be produced by the assessee before the assessing authority in Rajasthan to satisfy the condition of the notification. He thus urged that these cheap footwears should be deemed to have been manufactured by the small scale industries and the condition of the notification should be deemed to have been satisfied and thus, impugned 10 orders passed by the assessing authority denying such exemption and imposing tax on the assessee deserves to be quashed. He thus urged that these cheap footwears should be deemed to have been manufactured by the small scale industries and the condition of the notification should be deemed to have been satisfied and thus, impugned 10 orders passed by the assessing authority denying such exemption and imposing tax on the assessee deserves to be quashed. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that even if it is taken as a condition of the notification that such certificate is required to be produced, it is a debatable point which would fall outside the ambit and scope of Section 17 of the Act, which permits only the rectification of mistake apparent from the face of the record of the case. He repeated that firstly no such condition was stipulated in the notification and in the alternative, such condition should be deemed to have been satisfied and lastly that the scope of Section 17 was limited, therefore, the learned assessing authority as well as the Tax Board erred in imposing the tax on the assessee on this ground. He also brought to the notice of the Court that the Tax Board itself, in a subsequent matter in the case of Assistant Commissioner Vs. Jai Jagdambe Footwear Company in Appeal No. 661/94/ST/Sikar vide its order dt. 10.12.1996, after about nine months of the impugned order, took a different view and the same Member or the Presiding Officer of the Tax Board (Mr. M.L. Mangal) held that such additional tax could not be imposed on footwear by invoking Section 17 of the Act. He, therefore, prayed for allowing these revision petitions and quashing of the order of the Tax Board. 7. Per contra, Mr. Brij Sharma, appearing for Mr. A.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue, urged that since despite giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the assessee did not produce the SSI Certificate, which was required to satisfy the assessing authority that the goods were manufactured or marketed by small scale industry, the learned assessing authority was justified in imposing the additional tax denying the exemption to the assessee in the absence of SSI Certificate. He, therefore, submitted that the Tax Board was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption. He, therefore, prayed that revision petitions deserves to be dismissed. 8. He, therefore, submitted that the Tax Board was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption. He, therefore, prayed that revision petitions deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record, the relevant provisions, notifications and case law cited at the Bar. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors., reported in [1985] 60 STC 1 (SC) propounding four basic characteristics of valid imposition of tax, held as 45 under: “The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable even attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed, and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed, and the fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainly or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity.” 10. It is well-settled that taxing statutes have to be strictly construed and conditions for grant of exemption also have to be strictly construed. There is no equity about tax. The question here is the obligation which is sought to be cast upon the assessee, in the present case, viz. Production of SSI Certificate, whether that is envisaged by the relevant exemption notification or not. Admittedly, the goods in question were purchased by the petitioner assessee from outside the State and were sold or marketed within the State. The notification dt. 11.07.1990 stipulate that footwears upto the value of Rs. 20/- manufactured or marketed by small scale industry would be exempted from sales tax. The explanation in these two notifications further state that the investment in plant and machinery upto Rs. 35 lacs under notification dt. 11.07.1990 and upto Rs. 60 lacs under the notification dt. 02.12.1992 would be deemed to be small scale industries. 20/- manufactured or marketed by small scale industry would be exempted from sales tax. The explanation in these two notifications further state that the investment in plant and machinery upto Rs. 35 lacs under notification dt. 11.07.1990 and upto Rs. 60 lacs under the notification dt. 02.12.1992 would be deemed to be small scale industries. Firstly, there is no stipulation in these notifications that the assessee will have to produce any certificate of small scale industries before the assessing authority to satisfy this condition. Secondly, this obligation cast on a selling dealer in the State, who purchases such cheap footwear from various other manufacturers situated in different States, would be virtually and practically impossible of compliance, as can be gathered in the present case itself, the sales bills produced by the assessee indicate that these cheap footwears are manufactured and sold by various dealers of Agra and Kanpur, which bear the endorsement or a certificate on the sales bills that such cheap footwear are handmade. It appears to be quite reasonable, possible and real that no complex and big plant and machinery is required in the production of such cheap footwear which are sought to be exempted from sales tax to promote the trade of such cheap footwear. To put such an obligation on the selling dealer, namely, that of production of SSI Certificate of selling dealers, would amount to virtual negation of the exemption to such small selling dealers dealing with such cheap footwear and it would be taking away the exemption by one hand which is given by another hand of the State, which cannot be the intention of the State Government while issuing exemption notifications, nor such notifications specifically and clearly stipulate, the condition of production of such SSI Certificate of all selling dealers, who may be scattered all over the country at different places, before the assessing authority of purchasing dealers who effects the sale of such goods within the State of Rajasthan. In the absence of any specific and clear stipulation in these notifications, this Court is of the opinion that this condition could not have been insisted upon by the assessing authority to deny the exemption on the sale of cheap footwear in the present case. In the absence of any specific and clear stipulation in these notifications, this Court is of the opinion that this condition could not have been insisted upon by the assessing authority to deny the exemption on the sale of cheap footwear in the present case. The burden of proof in this regard, while imposing tax on apparently exempted sales of cheap footwear; lied on the Revenue to prove that condition of exemption are clear enough and was not satisfied by the assessee. In the present case, Revenue has not brought any such material on record except audit objection, the genesis of which is not known, to show that these footwears were manufactured or marketed by SSI units or were manufactured or marketed by large scale units. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee also appears to be justified in the submission that the grant of exemption in the original assessment order on the strength of these notifications, could not be said to be mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to invite action under Secs. 17 of the Act, which permits, rectification of only mistakes apparent from the face of the record. There is no dispute in the present case that footwear in question were of value of Rs. 20/- per pair or less, and therefore, they were admittedly cheap footwear. There is further no dispute that the assessee never collected any sales tax on the sale of these cheap footwear from its customers and it was held entitled to such exemption and assessed accordingly while passing of the original assessment order. Merely because an audit objection was raised in this regard, the assessing authority holding it to be a condition precedent for grant of exemption and in the absence of production of SSI Certificate, could not deny such exemption, it cannot be held to be a mistake apparent in the original assessment order. The judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts speak volumes that opinion of audit party raised by way of audit objections, are merely their opinions and they cannot be said to be information or adverse material so as to invite reassessment much less they can furnish the jurisdiction or the basis for invoking jurisdiction of rectification of apparent mistakes as under Secs. 17 of the Act. 12. 17 of the Act. 12. Consequently, this Court finds that the Tax Board erred in holding that the condition of the exemption notification was not satisfied by the assessee and the assessing authority could, therefore, invoke Section 17 of the Act and impose tax on the assessee under Sec. 17 of the Act. The impugned order of the Tax Board dt. 18.03.1996 as well as that of the assessing authority under Sec. 17 of the Act dt. 27.02.1993, so also the order passed by the assessing authority on 17.04.1996 to give effect to the Tax Board order, are set aside and it is held that the assessing authority could not have invoked the jurisdiction under Sec. 17 of the Act to deny the exemption to the assessee in the present case under the aforesaid notifications. 13. Consequently, these two revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.