Amitava Roy, J. - Judicial intervention in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought for in the instant petition to annul the rectified assessments dated 06.03.2009 under Section 37(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereafter referred to as the Act, 1993) read with Section 109 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereafter referred to as the Act, 2003) as well as the clarification provided by the Com­missioner of Taxes, Assam, to the notification dated 03.01.2003 issued under Section 9(3) of the Act 1993 as well as the order dated 24.09.2009/30.09.2009 of the said author­ity dismissing the revision petition filed by the present petitioner preferred against the afore­mentioned assessment. Consequential de­mands have also been impeached. 2. I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, Sr. Advo­cate, assisted by Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondents. 3. The pleaded versions of the parties are essential to lay the preface of the adjudica­tion. The petitioner in WP(C) 4859/2009 has introduced itself to be a Private Limited Com­pany registered under the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of P.V.C. Pipes and Plastic Water Tanks, having its principal place of business at Bonda, Narengi, Guwahati, Assam. It claims to be a small scale industry and regis­tered earlier as a dealer under the Act 1993 and presently under Act 2003 and also the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. According to the petitioner, it had been submitting its monthly returns and paying tax as per the same as due from it. 4. During the assessment year 2004-2005, it made supply of P.V.C. Pipes to the Government Departments to the tune of Rs.4,26,04,836/- and in terms of the notifi­cation No. FTX.189/93/PI/258 dated 3.1.2003 issued under Section 9(3) of the Act, 1993 it charged concessional rate of tax @ 4.4% on the related bills against relevant declaration Forms, furnished by the indenting departments. The above notification in the interpretation of the petitioner was in force on and from 03.01.2003 to 03.01.2006. 5. The assessment proceeding for the aforementioned period i.e. 2004-05 was com­pleted under Section 17(4) of the Act 1993 on 14.02.2006. The above notification in the interpretation of the petitioner was in force on and from 03.01.2003 to 03.01.2006. 5. The assessment proceeding for the aforementioned period i.e. 2004-05 was com­pleted under Section 17(4) of the Act 1993 on 14.02.2006. It was almost two years thereafter that pursuant to some audit objec­tion, a show cause notice was issued to it by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit A, Guwahati, requiring it to explain as to why the balance rate of tax (13.2% - 4.4%) i.e. 8.8% and the interest thereon would not be levied on the aforementioned turnover. This step was ap­parently on the comprehension that it had been wrongly allowed concessional rate of 4.4% on the turnover for the year 2004-2005 for the related supplies as the notification dated 03.01.2003 was intended to be in force for a period of three years w.e.f 01.05.2001. The petitioner accordingly submitted a detailed reply contending in substance that the life of the notification was to be construed to be for a period of three years from the date of its issue i.e. 03.01.2003 and that the proposed additional levy @ 8.8% and interest was to­tally unwarranted. It also asserted to have made the supply of the PVC Pipes to the Gov­ernment Departments at the assessed rate of 4.4% for which no objection at any stage was raised. According to the petitioner, neither the departmental authorities nor the dealers were under the impression that the notification would be effective from a date prior to that of its issuance i.e. 03.01.2003 or for that matter, that of its publication on 22.01.2003 in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary. 6. The aforementioned revenue authority, however, rectified the assessment and by ap­plying the rate of 13.2% determined that an additional amount of Rs.6,64,84,414/- as payable by it. Though being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, against the rectified assessment as above by the im­pugned order dated 24.09.2009, the same was rejected. It was during the pendency of the revision petition that it came to light that the respondent No.4 had meanwhile on 05.12.2008 sought for a clarification from the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, on the issue and that the latter vide communication No. CTS-03/1/2009/10 dated 19.02.2009 had elucidated that it (notification) had been brought into force from 01.05.2001 and thus would be in force till 30.04.2004. 7. 7. Pursuant to the rectified assessment, a notice of demand has in the meantime been issued for an amount of Rs.64,84,414/- by way of tax and interest for the assessment year 2004-2005 and a Bakijai Case against being No. 60/09-10/AGST has been registered. Though the petitioner has submitted its reply to the notice in the Bakijai proceedings, fol­lowing the dismissal of the revision petition, the Certificate officer (Taxation), Guwahati, vide memo No. 669 dated 07.10.2009 has directed payment of the arrear dues within the period as mentioned therein. 8. The Revenue in its affidavit through the respondent No.3 has pleaded retrospective effect of the notification dated 03.01.2003 on and from 01.05.2001 contending that its life term ran upto 30.04.2004. It has been as­serted that the petitioner had paid tax at the concessional rate for the period August, 2001 to January, 2003 which clearly indicated its acceptance of the retrospectively of the noti­fication concerned. According to the Revenue, if the petitioner in fact had charged lower rate of tax from the Government Department for the supplies made by it beyond the validity of the notification, it was at its risk and that the same did not absolve it of its liability to pay tax at the normal rate after the lapse thereof. While endorsing the clarification provided to the notification by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, the answering respondent has rati­fied the validity of the rectified assessment, the decision in the revision petition as well as the consequential demand. 9. The unrefuted pleaded recital of the case of the petitioner in WP(C) 4860/2009 in absence of any affidavit in opposition of the respondents is that it is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its principal place of busi­ness at Industrial Area, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati, Assam. It is engaged in the busi­ness of manufacture, sale and supply of P. V.C. Pipes and Fittings. At the relevant time, it was registered as a dealer under the Act 1993 and thereafter under the Act, 2003 and is also so under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dur­ing the assessment year 2004-2005, it inter alia made supplies of P.V.C. Pipes to the Government Departments to the tune of Rs.4,05,88,412/- at a concessional rate of tax i.e. 4.4% in view of the notification dated 03.01.2003. Dur­ing the assessment year 2004-2005, it inter alia made supplies of P.V.C. Pipes to the Government Departments to the tune of Rs.4,05,88,412/- at a concessional rate of tax i.e. 4.4% in view of the notification dated 03.01.2003. The Superintendent of Taxes, Unit A, Dispur, on following the due proce­dure relatable thereto, completed the assess­ment under Section 17(4) of the Act 1993 on 04.04.2007. It was almost after one year thereafter that the petitioner was required to show cause by the State Authority as to why the balance rate of tax @ 8.8% (13.2%-4.4%) together with interest accrued thereon would not be levied on its turnover of Rs.4,05,88,412/-. Inspite of the detailed re­ply submitted by the petitioner, the respon­dent No.4 rectified the assessment and recorded an additional demand of Rs. 68,57,820/-. The petitioner too unsuccess­fully preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, against the rectified assessment. 10. Dr. Saraf with reference to Section 9(3) of the Act, 1993 has sought to impress upon this Court that as the notification in terms thereof is to remain valid for a period of three years from the date of its issue, by no means it can be accorded a retrospective effect, the same being obviously impermissible under the statute. According to the learned Sr. counsel, therefore, the clarification to the contrary pro­vided by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, is nonest. Not only the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 records erroneously the date of the notification No. FTX 189/92/P/255 as 24.08.1998 instead of 28.4.1998, the Revisional Authority grossly erred in holding that the notification dated 03.01.2003 was effective on and from 01.05.2001 inferring the same from the conduct of the transacting parties including the petitioner charging the tax at concessional rate, he urged. Dr. Saraf has maintained that not only the attempt to ac­cord the notification dated 03.01.2003 a ret­rospective effect is both incomprehensible and impermissible under the Act 1993, the petitioner having charged tax at the concessional rate during the period beyond 01.05.2004 from the consumers, the inter­pretation of the respondent authorities, it sus­tained, would result in colossal loss to it and undue enrichment for the revenue. To rein­force his arguments, Dr. Saraf has led this Court to the relevant provisions of the Act 1993 and 2003 besides pressing into service the decision of the Apex Court in The Income Tax officer, Alleppy Vs. M.C. Ponnoose & Ors. To rein­force his arguments, Dr. Saraf has led this Court to the relevant provisions of the Act 1993 and 2003 besides pressing into service the decision of the Apex Court in The Income Tax officer, Alleppy Vs. M.C. Ponnoose & Ors. etc., (1969)2 SCC 351 and Bakul Cashew Co. Vs. Sales Tax officer, Quilon, (1986) 2 SCC 365 . 11. In assiduous refutation of the above, Mr. Saikia has asserted that apart from the fact that the notification dated 03.01.2003 is not under challenge, it being apparent on its face that it was intended to be effective on and from 01.05.2001, no contention to the contrary is entertainable. As the petitioner ad­mittedly had reaped the benefit of the concessional rate of tax for the period of three years on and from the date of its enforcement i.e. 01.05.2001, it is estopped from contend­ing otherwise, he urged. As the language of the notification is obvious and outright, the clarification provided by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, the rectified assessment and the revisional order are valid and that no in­terference by this Court is called for, he pleaded. 12. The competing pleadings and the ar­guments based thereon have received the due consideration of this Court. Some recorded facts having overall and significant bearing on the issues seeking adjudication deserve re­capitulation. 13. The assessment year involved is 2004-05. If the notification dated 01.03.2003 is pro-vided a life term of three years from 01.05.2001, it would expire on 30.04.2004. The notification involved assuredly had been issued in exercise of the power vested in the State Government by Section 9(3) of the Act. The second proviso thereto makes it appar­ent that the validity thereof shall not exceed a period of three years from the date of its is­sue. The prepotent and obvious objective of the said legal provision is to limit the power of the State Government to grant exemption or reduction of interest payable under the Act in class of goods as mentioned in the said notification for a period of three years in one phase. In other words, the benefit of exemp­tion or reduction by a notification cannot be extended beyond three years in one tranche, which has to be reckoned from the date of its issue. The legislative intent is thus unequivo­cal against sanction of exemption or reduc­tion in excess of three years at a stretch by one notification. In other words, the benefit of exemp­tion or reduction by a notification cannot be extended beyond three years in one tranche, which has to be reckoned from the date of its issue. The legislative intent is thus unequivo­cal against sanction of exemption or reduc­tion in excess of three years at a stretch by one notification. The interpretation of such a notification involved has thus to be guided es­sentially by the above pronounced and ex­press mandate of the Legislature. Admittedly the notification preceding the one in hand was issued on 28.04.1998 to be effective from 01.05.98 and the same spent its force on 30.04.2001. To this extent the observation of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, that the said notification was dated 28.08.1998 is obviously erroneous. The same, however, in the estimate of this Court is not of any deter­minative relevance. 14. That prior to 01.03.2003, no notifi­cation had been issued to cover the period 01.05.2001 to 28.02.2003 is also not in dis­pute. The parties are not at issue that for this period i.e. 01.05.2001 to 28.02.2003, the transactions under the Act drew tax liability at the exempted/reduced rate as envisaged in the notification dated 01.03.2003. This is evi­dent from the pleaded deals with the ex­empted/reduced rate of tax. Obviously the parties to the transaction have availed the benefit of such exemption/reduction for the said period. 15. Do the words "date of its issue" sig­nify irrefutably and indispensably the initiation of the period of exemption/reduction of the tax rate from the date of the notification and not otherwise is the poser. 16. The authorities cited at the Bar in es­sence propound that the permissibility or otherwise of according retrospectivity to a statu­tory provision would be contingent on the language employed and the prescription thereof to that effect in express terms or by necessary implication. This analogy applies to a delegated legislation as well. Retrosp­ectivity of a legislation be it parent or del­egated is thus not an anathema but is essen­tially tempered by the empowering statutory edict. 17. Maxwell in the Interpretation of Stat­utes, Twelfth Edition has adumbrated a few significant aspects of the issue outlined in the following excerpts. This analogy applies to a delegated legislation as well. Retrosp­ectivity of a legislation be it parent or del­egated is thus not an anathema but is essen­tially tempered by the empowering statutory edict. 17. Maxwell in the Interpretation of Stat­utes, Twelfth Edition has adumbrated a few significant aspects of the issue outlined in the following excerpts. "If, however, the language or the dominant intention of the enactment so demands, the Act must be construed so as to have a retrospec­tive operation, for "the rule against the retro­spective effect of statutes is not a rigid or in­flexible rule but is one to be applied always in the light of the language of the statute and the subject matter with which the statute is deal­ing. Before the presumption against retrospectivity is applied, a Court must be satisfied that the Statute is in fact retrospective. In the words of Craies on Statute Law, a statute is retrospective "which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or con­siderations already past". "The rule under discussion has been ap­plied chiefly in cases in which the statute in question, if it operated retrospectively, would prejudicially affect vested rights or the legality of past transactions, or would impair contracts, or would impose new duties or attach new dis­abilities in respect of past transactions." "The rule against retrospectivity operation is a presumption only, and as such it "may be overcome, not only by express words in the Act but also by circumstances sufficiently strong to displace it." 18. The quintessence of the authoritative enunciations synopsised as above proclaims against retrospectivity of a statute or any other instrument of law in absence of express or implied intendment in the empowering legis­lation more particularly, if the same has the potential of divesting or impairing any vested right acquired under the existing laws or cre­ates a new obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of past transactions or considerations. The precept against retrospectivity is however not an ob­durate or intransigent proposition and is ca­pable of being dislodged not only by the ex­press words of the enactment involved but also by circumstances persuasively sugges­tive thereof. 19. The notification dated 01.03.2003 is conspicuous by its language to be effective from 01.05.2001. The precept against retrospectivity is however not an ob­durate or intransigent proposition and is ca­pable of being dislodged not only by the ex­press words of the enactment involved but also by circumstances persuasively sugges­tive thereof. 19. The notification dated 01.03.2003 is conspicuous by its language to be effective from 01.05.2001. The period of exemption/ reduction is limited by the Act to be for a period of three years. In the comprehension of this Court though Section 9(3) does not as such in express words permit the State Government to issue a notification with a back date, the words "date of issue" is in no uncertain terms intended to be the starting point of the period of three years to avail the exemption or reduction in the rate of tax. By issuing this notification as is apparent in the contextual facts, the State Government de­sired a continuity in the exemption/ reduc­tion on and from 01.05.2001 and not 01.03.2003. The date of issue i.e. 01.03.2003, if construed to be the starting point of the grant of the exemption/reduc­tion, it will not only be obviously against the apparent objective conveyed thereby but also lead to unwarranted anomalies and com­plications vis-a-vis the past transactions closed and finalised during 01.05.2001 to 28.02.2003. Admittedly the petitioner and others participating in such transactions have availed the benefit of such exemption/reduction in tax rate and thus if the notification as has been done is construed to have been ef­fective from 01.05.2001, the same would not in any manner prejudicially affect any of its vested rights. 20. The observations in the impugned or­der of the revisional forum in this perspec­tive cannot be repudiated as unrelated or im­pertinent. In the opinion of this Court the word "date of issue" have to condition them­selves to the cardinal ordainment of the ceil­ing of three years for the exemption/reduc­tion in tax rate and a notification under Sec­tion 9(3) would essentially have to be con­strued accordingly. The attendant facts and circumstances more particularly the succes­sive notifications dated 28.04.1998 and 01.03.2003 with the period involved mani­fest that the intention of the State Govern­ment was to sustain the benefit of exemp­tion/reduction in tax rate without any break on and from 1.5.2001 for a period of three years therefrom. The reference of suppercession of the notification dated 28.04.1998 in the one dated 01.03.2003 is an unimpeachable index to that effect. The reference of suppercession of the notification dated 28.04.1998 in the one dated 01.03.2003 is an unimpeachable index to that effect. The interpretation as suggested by the petitioner would in the contextual facts be patently re­pugnant to the unambiguous enjoinment of the above provision of the Rules. 21. In the wake of the above challenge to the clarification provided by the revenue, the decision of the Commissioner of Tax, Assam, in the revision proceedings, the rec­tified assessments and the demands on the basis thereof is hereby negatived. The pe­tition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.