ORDER N. Paul Vasanthakumar :- In W.P. Nos. 20474 to 20476 of 2008, the petitioners have prayed to quash the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated May 30, 2008, enhancing the rate of tax to 16 per cent from ten per cent for the paper based laminated sheets. In all other writ petitions, the prayer is to quash the show-cause notices/reassessment orders, issued for reassessing the tax, at the rate of 16 per cent based on the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated May 30, 2008. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows : (a) The petitioner - firms are registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the TNGST Act") and they are assessees, filed returns before the jurisdictional Commercial Tax Officer/assessing officer. The petitioners have filed monthly returns under rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. (b) The petitioners are dealers in paper based decorative laminated sheets, which are received from other States and they have paid the tax at the point of first sale in the State. The product is made up of paper and is being treated as paper based products. The first respondent issued clarification under section 28A of the TNGST Act, 1959, with regard to the rate of tax on paper based decorative laminated sheet. In clarification No. 100/2005, dated August 17, 2005, the first respondent clarified that the products are decorative laminates and taxable at 16 per cent under entry 8(ii), Part E of the First Schedule to the Act. (c) According to the petitioners, the actual rate of tax on such goods is ten per cent and therefore they sought for review of the said clarification. The first respondent after reviewing the same, issued clarification No. 55 of 2006 on March 23, 2006 and stated that the paper based decorative laminated sheets are taxable at ten per cent as the goods are falling under entry No. 22(iv), Part C of the First Schedule to the Act. The said clarification was issued taking note of the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal made in O.P. No. 120 of 1996 dated April 12, 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213). The said clarification was issued taking note of the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal made in O.P. No. 120 of 1996 dated April 12, 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213). The said decision was given by the said Special Tribunal after obtaining a report from the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai 32. As per the above order of the Taxation Special Tribunal, assessments for the petitioners were made by the assessing officers all these years and collected ten per cent tax. (d) The petitioners, all of a sudden received revision notice from the respective assessing officer stating that the assessing officers proposed to reopen completed assessments and proposed to reassess the sales turnover of paper based decorative laminated sheets at 16 per cent. In some cases, revised orders were passed. The said show-cause notices/revised orders were issued on the basis of the clarification issued by the first respondent dated May 30, 2008. The said clarification is challenged in W.P. No. 20474 to 20476 of 2008. (e) In all other writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the show-cause notices/revised orders on the ground that there is no purpose in giving reply to the show-cause notices on reopening the assessment or filing appeal, since the assessing officers relied upon the clarification issued by the first respondents, which is binding on the assessing officers. The jurisdiction of the first respondent in issuing the clarification is also challenged on the ground that the Special Tribunal has given an order as early as on April 12, 1996 and the said order was accepted without challenging the same by the Department. The relevant entry in the TNGST Act, 1959, also has not been amended or modified, based on which the Commissioner issued clarification on March 23, 2006 and the petitioners have also paid ten per cent of the tax on the sale of paper based laminated sheets and the sales having taken place long ago, they will not be in a position to recover the difference of tax now proposed, from their customers. (f) It is also stated in the affidavit that the impugned clarification and the consequential reopening of the assessments were made based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in interpreting the product under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which is an independent enactment and interpretation given under the said Act cannot be applied to the entries made in the TNGST Act, without making any amendment to the relevant entries. (g) It is further stated in the affidavit that even assuming that the first respondent is entitled to issue such clarification, the assessments already completed and the taxes paid shall not be reopened for the earlier years as the clarification cannot be applied retrospectively and if the same is applied, it will cause great hardships to the petitioners, who have already paid ten per cent of tax on their sale of laminated paper products. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit by stating that originally paper based decorative laminated sheets were assessed by levying tax at ten per cent under entry 22(iv) of Part C of the First Schedule and it was brought to the notice of the Department that the Supreme Court by following its own earlier decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. [1997] 10 SCC 350, Decent Laminates (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs reported in [2006] 7 SCC 438 and also Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab Laminates (P) Ltd. reported in [2006] 7 RC 399; [2006] 7 SCC 431 held that paper based decorative laminated sheets are not paper products but falling under entry 3920.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, taking note of the manufacturing process of paper based decorative laminated sheets, they would fall under the heading 39.20. The apex court having conclusively held that these goods can never be treated as paper products, viz., "other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics, non-cellular, whether lacquered or metallised or laminated supported or similarly combined with other materials or not", tax could be levied on such products at 16 per cent by treating them as falling under entry 8(ii) of Part E in the First Schedule. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that this was correctly clarified in the clarification dated August 17, 2005 and subsequently reviewed based on the order passed in Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213 (O.P. No. 120 of 1996 dated April 12, 1996) by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and the impugned clarification is issued based on the judgments of the Supreme Court above referred and in some cases the already concluded assessments were reopened and show-cause notices were issued and in some cases revised assessment orders were passed. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that while manufacturing paper based decorative laminated sheets, the paper used in the manufacturing process as raw material completely disappears on the creation of altogether new products and therefore there is no nexus or relation with either paper or board. The law having been declared by the Supreme Court, though under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court equally applies to the paper based laminated sheets, which is being sold by the petitioners and therefore the clarification issued by the first respondent is valid and the second respondent is entitled to reassess the assessments already completed and entitled to demand the difference in tax, i.e., from ten to 16 per cent. No separate counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent even though the clarification issued by the first respondent is challenged in three writ petitions. The learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners submitted that the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal having rendered a finding in O.P. No. 120 of 1996 on April 12, 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213) and the said order having become final, the respondents are bound by the said order which was also accepted and implemented by issuing clarification on November 12, 1998 and March 23, 2006. The first respondent is not empowered to take a different view, particularly when the assessments were completed and ten per cent of tax having been paid by the petitioners. The first respondent is not empowered to take a different view, particularly when the assessments were completed and ten per cent of tax having been paid by the petitioners. The learned counsels further submitted that the interpretation given by the honourable Supreme Court in the judgments relied on by the first respondent is applicable to the tariff payable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the same cannot be made applicable automatically to the TNGST Act, 1959 and in support of the said contention cited the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Associated Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 89 STC 447 and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Neoluxe India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vikrikar Bhavan, Bombay [2008] 13 VST 157. The learned counsels also submitted that even assuming without admitting that the clarification issued by the first respondent is valid, the same cannot be applied retrospectively since the petitioners have sold their paper based laminated sheets prior to the said clarification and assessments are also completed and the petitioners have also paid ten per cent of the tax amount and the impugned show-cause notices/revised orders issued for reopening the already completed assessments in terms of the clarification issued in the year 2008, is improper, as it causes great prejudice to the petitioner - assessees. The learned counsels also submitted that admittedly there was doubt/ambiguity with regard to the collection of tax to the Department with regard to the paper based laminated sheets and the respondents have collected only ten per cent of tax and the benefit of doubt/ambiguity has to be extended to the assessees and on such ground also the impugned show-cause notices/assessment orders, passed after reassessment are liable to be set aside. The learned counsels cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Binani Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VI Circle, Bangalore reported in [2007] 6 VST 783, Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2008] 14 VST 259; [2008] 10 RC 607, MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 76 and Union of India v. R. C. Jain AIR 1981 SC 951 in support of their above said contentions. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that the Supreme Court having declared the law on the subject giving interpretation with regard to the paper based laminated sheets, though under the entries contained in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the product being the same, the clarification issued by the first respondent stating that the paper based laminated sheets on sale is liable to be levied 16 per cent tax, instead of ten per cent tax, is valid. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the earlier clarifications issued to collect ten per cent of tax was based on the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and now the Supreme Court having declared the law, the impugned clarification has been issued, which is in accordance with the said judgments of the Supreme Court. It is also contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the writ petitions challenging show-cause notices are not maintainable as the petitioners have got remedy to file objections with regard to the reassessment orders passed, the petitioners are having a remedy to file appeal against the said orders and therefore the writ partitions filed are liable to be dismissed. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that since the laminated sheets cannot be treated as paper based, as it is a different product, though paper is used as raw material, higher tax are liable to be payable by the dealers as it is coming under entry 8(ii) of Part E of the First Schedule to the Act. The learned Special Government Pleader cited the Division Bench decision of this court in Valtech High Tech Composites Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras - 5 reported in [1994] 95 STC 476 and judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. reported in [1997] 105 STC 318 in support of his contention. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the paper based laminated sheets shall not be treated as plastic products or plywood products. The interpretation given by the Supreme Court is in respect of plastic products and therefore the respondents are not justified in relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the paper based laminated sheets shall not be treated as plastic products or plywood products. The interpretation given by the Supreme Court is in respect of plastic products and therefore the respondents are not justified in relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. The relevant entry under the TNGST Act falls under Part C, Sl. No. 22(iv), which states that all kinds of papers and paper board not otherwise specified, including carbon paper, stencil paper, ammonia paper, ferro paper, cellophane paper, litmus - paper, but excluding cinematographic and photographic paper are taxable at ten per cent. The entry as existed in Part C of the First Schedule during the years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 under 22(iv), viz., paper and board laminated, quoted or interlined with other materials are liable for tax at ten per cent. The issue as to whether laminated papers are liable for tax at ten per cent or 16 per cent, came up for consideration before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P. No. 120 of 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213) and the Tribunal after obtaining the opinion of the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Chemical), Chennai 32, (namely expert opinion) held that the paper based resin reinforced decorative sheets (laminated paper as described by the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce) fell under entry 44(v) of Part C year 1994-95 and paper based decorative laminated sheets are taxable at eight per cent. The respondents accepted the said findings and issued clarification on November 12, 1998 by cancelling the earlier clarification issued on April 22, 1998 and allowed eight per cent of tax. The said eight per cent tax was raised to ten per cent subsequently. Again the first, respondent issued another clarification on August 17, 2005 stating that paper based decorative laminated sheets is taxable at 16 per cent under entry 8(ii) of Part E of the First Schedule. The said eight per cent tax was raised to ten per cent subsequently. Again the first, respondent issued another clarification on August 17, 2005 stating that paper based decorative laminated sheets is taxable at 16 per cent under entry 8(ii) of Part E of the First Schedule. When objections were filed and prayed for reconsideration of the said clarification, the first respondent accepted the same and cancelled the said clarification dated August 17, 2005 by another clarification dated March 23, 2006 and stated that paper based decorative laminated sheets is taxable at ten per cent under entry 22(iv), Part C of the First Schedule. The said clarification issued was in operation till April 7, 2007. The Clarification No. 55/2006 dated March 23, 2006 is extracted hereunder : "Commercial Taxes Department From To Dr. T. Prabhakara Rao, IAS., Thiru V. V. Ramesh, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Counsel for Tvl. Century Chepauk, Laminating Co., Ltd. Chennai 600 005. C-1 Ground Floor, 49, Mambalam High Road T. Nagar, Chennai 17. Lr. No. L. Dis. Acts Cell 11/67772/05, dated March 23, 2006 Clarification No. 55/06 Sir, Sub. : Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Rate of tax clarification under section 28A of the Act for 'paper based decorative laminated sheet' - Clarification issued - Reconsideration of - Regarding. Ref. : 1. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' D. Dis. ACII/23668/05, dated. August 17, 2005. 2. Note by Deputy Commissioner (Central), Chennai, dated November 25, 2005. 3. Review petition dated nil from Thiru. V. V. Ramesh counsel for Tvl. Century Laminating Co. Ltd., Chennai. 4. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' Lr. No. ACII/67772/05, dated January 2, 2006. 5. Written submissions dated January 12, 2006 by Thiru. V. V. Sampathkumar, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the petitioner. In the reference first cited a clarification was issued to Tvl. Century Laminating Co. Ltd., Chennai, that 'paper based decorative laminated sheet' is taxable at 16 per cent under entry 8(ii), Part E of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the reference third cited, the petitioners have filed a reconsideration petition with a request to consider their product as taxable at ten per cent under entry No. 22(iv), Part C, First Schedule and they have requested a personal hearing. Accordingly, they have been provided with an opportunity to explain their case. In the reference third cited, the petitioners have filed a reconsideration petition with a request to consider their product as taxable at ten per cent under entry No. 22(iv), Part C, First Schedule and they have requested a personal hearing. Accordingly, they have been provided with an opportunity to explain their case. Thiru V. V. Sampathkumar, Chartered Accountant, appeared at the time of personal hearing and filed copies of earlier clarifications issued from this office dated November 12, 1998 and October 30, 1998 and stated that in the above clarifications, their product was clarified as taxable at eight per cent (old rate) and the same entry is now available under entry No. 22(iv), Part C, First Schedule to the Act, taxable at ten per cent. He also filed a copy of Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal's decision in O.P. No. 120/1996 dated April 12, 1996 in the case of Balaji Timber Corporation, Madras v. State of Tamil [1997] 105 STC 213, in which the issue in question has been elaborately discussed as under : 'The samples (paper based decorative laminated sheet) one, produced by the assessee and the other purchased by the Revenue were sent to the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Chemical), Chennai 32, to submit a report as to whether the said samples would fall under which of the two entries extracted above, i.e., entry 13(i), Part E, First Schedule (at 16 per cent) and entry 44(v), Part C, First Schedule (at eight per cent - old entry). In his report in Rc. 3097/CW.4/96, dated March 29, 2006, the Joint Director, reported as follows : "With reference to the above, I am to state that the exhibits two numbers marked by A and B received along with the letter cited are laminated paper and fall in the category mentioned in the extract given as Sl. No. 44(v), Part C, First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959".' The particulars furnished by them have been examined. In view of the fresh facts put forth by the petitioners and relying on the above decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, it is clarified that 'paper based decorative laminated sheet' is taxable at ten per cent under entry No. 22(iv), Part C, First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The clarification already issued in the reference first cited is hereby cancelled. The clarification already issued in the reference first cited is hereby cancelled. Sd/- DR. T. Prabhakara Rao Commissioner of Commercial Taxes." The first respondent issued the clarification dated April 7, 2007 and stated that the paper based laminated sheets are taxable at 16 per cent and not at ten per cent, as it comes under entry 8(ii), Part E of the First Schedule. The said clarification was issued relying on the Supreme Court judgments. However, before issuing the said clarification, no notice was issued to the assessees and a writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 16867 of 2007 by contending that when the earlier clarification restoring 16 per cent of tax was cancelled, opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee and while cancelling the same and enhancing the tax rate at 16 per cent, no notice having been issued, this court by order dated January 29, 2008 set aside the clarification dated April 7, 2007 and directed the first respondent to issue notice, hear the objections and pass revised orders. Consequentially the first respondent issued clarification on May 30, 2008 stating that no fresh point for consideration was made by the assessees at the time of hearing and therefore reiterated the earlier clarification issued on April 7, 2007 as valid and stated that paper based decorative laminated sheets is taxable at 16 per cent under entry 8(ii) of Part E of the First Schedule and if imported taxable at 20 per cent under entry No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule. The question as to whether interpretation given by the Supreme Court with respect to entry made under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, with regard to paper based decorative laminated sheets can be relied on by the first respondent to collect tax under TNGST Act, 1959, which is a separate enactment passed by the State Legislature, is the issue to be decided. (a) In Associated Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 89 STC 447 a Division Bench of this court considered similar issue with regard to the expression "pesticides" and "insecticides", which were defined under section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Central Act 46 of 1968). The Division Bench held that : "... the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the Insecticides Act, 1969, to show that fungicides and weedicides are included in the expression 'pesticides' cannot improve the situation. The Division Bench held that : "... the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the Insecticides Act, 1969, to show that fungicides and weedicides are included in the expression 'pesticides' cannot improve the situation. The Legislature is presumed to be aware of the need of the people and while classifying the entries in a particular Schedule, if it chose not to include certain commodities in the First Schedule, its intention is obvious that it did not wish to extend the benefit of single point taxation in respect of those commodities. Since 'fungicides' was not included in entry 66, as it existed at the relevant time, and it was specifically added in the original entry by the Amending Act, it is obvious that the intention of the Legislature was to extend the benefit of single point taxation to 'fungicides' only from the date of the addition, viz., September 13, 1977. The commodities covered by the amended entry are wider than those in the original entry and since the effect of the amended entry was not made retrospective, it would be reasonable to hold that it was not the intention of the Legislature to employ the expanded entry for considering the original entry. The expressions used in the entry, both as it originally existed and after its amendment, are commercially and popularly understood and it is fairly well-settled that the words or expressions must be construed in the manner in which they are understood in the trade. No aid can, therefore, be available from the publications of the Indian Standards Institute as to what 'pesticides' are. Even the certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University to say that 'pesticides' would include 'fungicides' cannot advance the case of the appellant because, the Legislature in its supreme wisdom, brought 'fungicides' to be included in entry 66 for the first time only by amending Act 7 of 1977 with effect from September 13, 1977." (b) The Bombay High Court also in Neoluxe India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vikrikar Bhavan, Bombay [2008] 13 VST 157, considered as to whether the decision rendered in a Central Excise Act and Central Excise Tariff has any relevance in interpreting, plastic laminates in entry C-II-61 in Schedule II, Bombay Sales Tax Act. In paragraph 31 it is held as follows : "It is only after the decision of CEGAT in the year 1988 in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Ltd. [1988] 36 ELT 139, the petitioners and other manufacturers for the first time started claiming that the goods in question are paper board/coated board classifiable under entry C-II-9 and not under entry C-II-61. It is pertinent to note that the decision of CEGAT in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Ltd. [1988] 36 ELT 139 related to interpretation of the entries under the Central Excise Act and not under the BST Act. Apart from the fact that the entries under the Central Excise Tariff are totally different, it is well-settled in law that a situation contemplated in one statute cannot, in the absence of any express or clear intendment, be made to apply or be given effect while applying the provisions of another statute. Moreover, even the CEGAT ruling under the Central Excise Act is not to the effect that 'paper based decorative laminated sheets' are 'paper board or coated board' as contended by the petitioners. All that is held in that case is that the goods in question are not classifiable as 'plastic sheets' under item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff but are classifiable under the residuary entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Prior to amendment, entry C-II-61 referred to 'plastic laminates' and not 'plastic sheets'. Therefore, the decision rendered under the Central Excise Act has no relevance in interpreting the words 'plastic laminates' in entry C-II-61." (c) A Division Bench of this court in the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hajee P. Syed Mohammed (Deed.) reported in [1993] 91 STC 195 considered similar issue and held that the description of paper as contained in entry 117 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959, is not only all comprehensive but includes paper of all sorts and all kinds of paper even other than those illustrated or enumerated in the entry. If reference is made to specific inclusion within the meaning of the entry of categories of goods such as paste-board, mill board, straw board, card board, pulp board including grey board, corrugated board, duplex and triplex boards and board for playing cards it would only go to show that each and every kind of product connected with or having paper as one of its constituents, is made to encompass under the said entry. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, in O.P. No. 120 of 1996, by order dated April 12, 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213), considered the issue with regard to the taxability of paper based laminated sheets. In fact, the Taxation Special Tribunal directed to produce the sample of the product by directing the Revenue to inspect the place of business and make a sample purchase of the product, and the said sample was sent to the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai 32, and a report was directed to be filed as to whether the samples would fall under each of the two entries. The expert certified the product as paper based, i.e., sheets of paper are pasted one over the other with resin and not with gum, and it was not plywood based. The said finding was accepted by the respondents and issued clarifications as stated supra. It is admitted by the respondents that there is no change made in the entry in TNGST Act, 1959. The interpretation, given by the Supreme Court with respect to the Central Excise leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cannot be relied on to issue the impugned circular. Admittedly the entry contained in the TNGST Act was not amended after the interpretation given by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. Thus, the circular issued by the first respondent cannot be sustained. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are also not justified in relying on the circular for reopening, the assessment already made and the tax paid. The clarification/circular issued by the first respondent also cannot be applied retrospectively as the order nowhere states that it will have retrospective effect. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are also not justified in relying on the circular for reopening, the assessment already made and the tax paid. The clarification/circular issued by the first respondent also cannot be applied retrospectively as the order nowhere states that it will have retrospective effect. (a) In the decision reported in Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in [2005] 187 ELT 162 similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court with regard to the exemption notification issued under the DBPB Scheme of Customs Tariff Act. In paragraphs 28 and 29 it is held as follows : "28. The doctrine of fairness also is now considered to be a relevant factor for construing a statute. In a case of this nature where the effect of a beneficent statute was sought to be extended keeping in view the fact that the benefit was already availed of by the agriculturalists of tobacco in Guntur, it would be highly unfair if the benefit granted to them is taken away, although the same was meant to be extended to them also. For such purposes the statute need not be given retrospective effect by express words but the intent and object of the Legislature in relation thereto can be culled out from the background facts. 29. The question has futhermore to be considered having regard to the language and object discernible from the statute read as a whole. The respondents were not ineligible from obtaining the benefits. Once they are held to be eligible for obtaining the benefit, the amended notification being an exemption notification should receive the beneficent construction." (b) In Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. [2006] 198 ELT 330 also the honourable Supreme Court took the same view. (c) In Commissioner of Customs v. Spice Telecom [2006] 10 SCC 704 the retrospective effect of the notification was considered and in paragraph 16 it is held as follows : "16. Revenue has relied upon the subsequent Notification No. 21/2002 dated March 1, 2002. The subsequent notification defines the scope of ancillary equipment for BTS, by restricting the entry to only three equipments, namely (i) cellular repeaters, (ii) amplifiers, and (iii) wave guides (List 22, Sl. No. 239 of the Table). Radio terminals in this notification have not been considered as ancillary equipment of BTS. The subsequent notification defines the scope of ancillary equipment for BTS, by restricting the entry to only three equipments, namely (i) cellular repeaters, (ii) amplifiers, and (iii) wave guides (List 22, Sl. No. 239 of the Table). Radio terminals in this notification have not been considered as ancillary equipment of BTS. Revenue contends that Notification No. 21/2002 is clarificatory in nature and would be applicable to the radio terminals imported by the respondent in the year 1998 as well. We do not find any substance in this submission. The subsequent notification which defines the scope of ancillary equipment is effective only from March 1, 2002 and does not have retrospective effect. The respondent's clearance pertains to July, 1998 and Notification No. 21/2002 has come into effect with effect from March 1, 2002. It would not apply to the goods which have already been cleared. Notification No. 21/2002 cannot be given retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the notification ordinarily it cannot be presumed that the same is retrospective in nature. The learned counsel for the Revenue has failed to show that the subsequent notification is clarificatory in nature. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that with regard to the identical goods imported through Delhi, wherein the items were classified under the same heading, Delhi Customs House extended the benefit of the said notifications to the respondent." (d) In Suchitra Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur [2009] 20 VST 726 (SC); [2006] 12 SCC 452; [2007] 208 ELT 321 (SC) whether the departmental clarifications will have retrospective effect was considered by the Supreme Court and in paragraph 2 held thus : "2. We have heard Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned senior counsel for the respondent. We have perused the orders passed by the lower authorities and also of the Tribunal. The point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is covered by the recent judgment of this court in Civil Appeal No. 4488 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise v. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd. reported in [2007] 8 RC 1; [2007] 204 ELT 517. In the said judgment, this court held that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. In the said judgment, this court held that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, when the circular is against the assessee, they have right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively." From the above cited decisions it is evident that in tax matters, the clarifications issued can be applied only prospectively, failing which it will cause hardship to the assessees. It is an admitted fact that there was ambiguity/doubt with regard to the collection of tax on paper based laminated sheets to the respondents, i.e., whether tax is leviable at ten per cent or 16 per cent. Till May 30, 2008, the tax leviable was only ten per cent even according to the respondents and the petitioners have also paid the said rate of tax for their sales turnovers. Since the respondents were not firm in their view with regard to collection of tax, viz., percentage of tax, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the assessees, particularly when it is pleaded by the petitioners before this court that they have not collected more than ten per cent of tax while selling the paper based laminated sheets. It is also well-settled that if there is ambiguity with regard to the rate of tax to be collected, the benefit should go to the assessee. (a) Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCN 627; [1999] 8 SCC 667 in paragraph 12 it is held as follows : "12. Another question that arises for consideration in this connection is whether sub-section (1) of section 127A and the proviso to sub-section (2)(b) should be construed together and the annual letting values of all the buildings owned by a person to be taken together for determining the amount to be paid as tax in respect of each building. In our considered view, this position cannot be accepted. The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which doss not follow from the plain, unambiguous languages of the statute, Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the Legislature. The statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law, i.e., the subject of the tax, the person who is liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the tax is to be paid. If there is any ambiguity regarding any of these ingredients in a taxation statute then there is no tax in law. Then it is for the Legislature to do the needful in the matter." (b) In Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 289 ITR 341; [2007] 3 SCC 794; [2007] 8 RC 455 the Supreme Court held that while two interpretations are possible, the court would ordinarily interpret the provisions in favour of the taxpayers and against the Revenue. In paragraph 13 it is held thus : "13. A taxing statute, as is well known must be construed strictly. In Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs [2006] 7 SCC 714, 721; [2006] 7 RC 531 it was held : '24. While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of "strict interpretation" should be applied. The court shall not interpret, the statutory provision in such a manner which would create an additional fiscal burden on a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another Act, which are not attracted. It is also trite that while two interpretations are possible, the court ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of a taxpayer and against the Revenue'." (c) Recently in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. S.S. Ayodhya Distillery [2009] 19 VST 251 (SC); [2009] 233 ELT 146 (SC) again the same issue was considered in paragraph 10, wherein it is held that "if an entry contained in a notification imposing tax is ambiguous, the assessee cannot suffer therefor". In paragraph 14 it is held thus : "14. .... In paragraph 14 it is held thus : "14. .... Furthermore, if there is a doubt or dispute as to whether paddy husk or the rice husk denotes the same commodity or not, the benefit thereof shall be given to the assessee. ..." In the cases on hand, admittedly there was ambiguity with regard to the rate of tax payable by the assessees for the paper based decorative laminated sheets and the benefit of the said ambiguity should be extended to the petitioner - assessees and not to the Department/Revenue. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitions filed challenging the reassessment notice to reopen the assessment is not maintainable as the writ petitions are premature in nature, cannot be sustained. Similarly, the revised orders passed are also bad in law. Admittedly, the second respondent issued the notice to reopen the assessments already finalised based on the clarification of the first respondent dated May 30, 2008. Once the clarification itself is found untenable and also found not having any retrospective effect, the second respondent is not justified in issuing the impugned notices to the petitioner for reopening the already finalised assessments as well as to pass reassessment orders. In view of the said findings the objections raised by the respondents to maintain the writ petition challenging the notices are also untenable. For all the reasons stated above, I hold that the impugned clarification issued by the first respondent and the consequential show-cause notices/orders passed in reassessment, issued by the second respondent are unsustainable. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.