JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-assessee against the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by learned Tax Board, Ajmer allowing Revenue's appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 02.09.2008 for AY 2000-2001 and 2001-02 and holding that the assessee was not entitled to refund of exemption fees paid by him under the Notification No. F.4(1)/FD/Tax/Div./2000-290 S.O. No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 pursuant to rectification application filed him under Section 33 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act') 2. The case set up by the assessee In the present is that for the aforesaid two assessment years, even though he had applied for payment of exemption fees under the aforesaid Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 and had paid such exemption fees but since his entire turnover of sale of stainless steel flats, ingots and billets was exempted under the Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 which was later on substituted by Notification SO No. 366 dated 30.03.2000 (Annex. 1 of Revision Petition), therefore, by virtue of Section 13A (2) (1) of the Act, the turnover of exempted goods under the Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 or SO No. 366 dated 30.03.2000 was not eligible to the turnover tax at all under Section 13A of the Act; and therefore, the exemption fees paid under SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 deserved to be refunded back to the petitioner-assessee. The said rectification application seeking refund of exemption fees appears to have been filed by the assessee in pursuance of a decision of this Court in the case of ACTO v. Suncity Trade Agency, reported in (2005) 13 Tax Up-date, 250 , which dealt with Notification S.O. No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 and it was held therein that the exemption under the said Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 made such goods 'exempted goods' and turnover thereof, could not be subjected to turnover tax under Section 13A (1) of the Act and deduction thereof was liable to be given while computing turnover as per Section 13A (2) (i) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Authority, however, rejected the said rectification applications of the assessee vide order Annex-3 dated 26.09.2008, however, the first appellate authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur allowed the appeal of the assessee vide his order Annex-4 dated 02.09,2008 and directed refund of the exemption fees to the assessee. 3. The Assessing Authority, however, rejected the said rectification applications of the assessee vide order Annex-3 dated 26.09.2008, however, the first appellate authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur allowed the appeal of the assessee vide his order Annex-4 dated 02.09,2008 and directed refund of the exemption fees to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue filed a second appeal before the learned Tax Board, which was allowed by the learned Tax Board by its order dated 10.01.2011 (Annex-5) Learned Tax Board relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mycon Construction Ltd. v. State of Karnatana, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 583 : (2002) 127 STC 105 (SC) and in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industry's case, 111 STC 467 held that the assessee was not entitled to the said refund of exemption fees once having opted to pay the same and having been discharged from his obligation to get regular assessments done in terms of said Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 and it would result in unjust enrichment of the assessee. 4. Against the said order of the learned Tax Board, the assessee has preferred these two revision petitions before this Court for both the assessment years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Mehta, submitted that decision of this Court in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra), furnished it as sufficient ground for moving the rectification application for seeking refund of exemption fees paid by the assessee under the aforesaid Notification S.O. No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 since this Court had clearly held in the said judgment that even if the exemption under Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 was conditional subject to fulfilment of three conditions stipulated in the said Notification, upon fulfilment of such conditions, the sale of such goods was exempted from sales tax and accordingly the turnover of such exempted goods, would be deductible from gross turnover while computing the liability of turnover tax under Section 13A (2) (1) of the Act. 6. 6. He also urged that subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Manglam Yarn Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Bhilwara, reported in 2008 (22) Tax Up-date 85 , argued by himself, even though he did not refer to the previous decision in the case of Suncity Trading Agencies (supra), the said judgment in Manglam Yarn Agencies' case was in different context and this Court while holding that under the exemption Notification dated 17.09.2001 where the sale of man-made fibers and man-made yarn was exempted over rate of tax exceeding 2% subject to conditions stipulated in the said Notification being fulfilled, this Court rightly held that rate of turnover tax prescribed under the Notification dated 30.03.2000 @ 0.25% on the taxable turnover was still leviable as turnover tax could not be held to be exempted in view of Notification dated 17.09.2001 issued for exempting individual transaction of sale and purchase of man-made fibre and man-made yarn etc. He, therefore, submitted that the exemption fees paid even on the own volition of the assessee under the Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 deserved to be refunded back to the assessee, as there was no tax liability in respect of individual transactions of sale or purchase of the stainless, steels flats, ingots and billets and the assessee having admittedly fulfilled the requisite conditions of Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998, namely, using such materials as raw material in the manufacturing of stainless steel sheets within the State and such manufacturing stainless steel sheets of being sold in the course of inter-state trade of commerce and ST 17 declaration having been furnished by the manufacturer to the selling dealer. He also produced the copy of assessment order passed by the Assessing authority granting exemption on the sale or purchase of aforesaid goods in terms of Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 which was substituted by a late Notification SO No. 366 (S.No. 1323) dated 30.03.2000 produced as Annex-1 in the revision petition, which is applicable to these two years 2000-01 and 2001-02 in the present case. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently urged that the assessee is not entitled to refund of exemption fees paid by it voluntarily by opting to pay exemption fees in lieu of tax under the Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 and there is no question of applying for rectification for seeking such refund of exemption fees and, therefore, the Tax Board was justified in allowing Revenue's appeal for denying such refund of exemption fees he also submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra)merely held that even the conditionally exempted goods upon satisfaction of the conditions would be treated as sale of exempted goods and turnover of such exempted goods would also be deductible under Section 13A (2) (I) of the Act while computing turnover tax but In the present case, the assessee was never subjected to assessment of Individual transaction at all the In fact he was saved from this process of assessment by opting for the scheme of payment of exemption fees on the annual gross turnover under the Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000, which Notification according to him, does not draw any distinction between the taxable turnover and exempted turnover. On the other hand, said Notification provides for annual exemption fees on the basis of annual gross turnover in different slabs starting from Rs. 50 lacs of gross turnover and as per Clause 5 and said Notification once the assessee opts for this Notification and payment of exemption fees, then for the purposes of turnover tax, there will not be any assessment, survey or inspection of dealers opting for the scheme by the departmental authorities. According to learned counsel for the Revenue for getting this benefit and easy mode of payment of exemption fees in two instalments, any assessee could opt for said Notification and, therefore, once having opted for the same, the said Notification does not permit any exit route or withdrawal from the same to the assessee, even if his entire turnover is that of exempted goods made under the conditional exemption Notification like SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 or even the later Notification SO No. 366 (S.No. 1323) dated 30.03.2000 (Annex-1). 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Mathur further urged that judgment in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra), therefore, would not ensure to the benefit of the assessee in the present case and the deduction under Section 13A (2) (i) of the Act was not required to be given as per the exemption Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 as the assessee was simply outside the procedure of regular assessment under the said Notification. Therefore, the question of determining his taxable turnover or exempted turnover for imposition of turnover tax under Section 13A(2) (i) of the Act simply does not arise in the present case. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the later decision of M/s Manglam Yarn Agencies (supra), and urged that not only the judgment in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra), does not hold the assessee entitled for refund of such exemption fees in any manner but in fact the liability of turnover tax or for that matter payment of exemption fees under Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 as an alternate method, cannot be over ridden or slashed down by the exemption Notification issued for individual transactions of sale or purchase, exempting the assessee from tax-ability of individual sale or purchase as the two levies are for sales tax on individual transactions and turnover tax on the basis of gross turnover of the assessee over a particular limit, operate in different fields under the same enactment viz. RST Act, 1994. he also relied upon later decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Ali Mohd. Abdul Mazid v. CTO, Bikaner, reported in 2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 327 and also in a recent decision in the case of M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal Contractor, Sriganganagar v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Tax, Sriganganagar, S.B. Civil Value Added Tax Revision No. 107/2010, decided on 13.12.2011 and relying upon these decisions, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that no bifurcation of taxable turnover or exempted turnover was required to be done or was permitted once the assessee opted for payment of exemption fees on the basis of gross value of contract a gross annual turnover like in the present case and, consequently, the order of learned Tax Board In the present case, deserves to be upheld. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of present revision petitions flied by the assessee. 9. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of present revision petitions flied by the assessee. 9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record and judgments cited at bar and relevant Notifications. 10. The assessee in the present case, appears to have laboured under a misconception that having opted for the payment of exemption fees annually of his turnover tax liability under Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 computed on the basis of annual gross turnover, he could seek refund of same treating the said Notification as non est for him on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra). In the said judgment, delivered ex-parte the assessee, this Court was merely seized of the controversy as to whether the terms 'exempted goods' as defined under Section 2 (18) of the Act, which terms were employed in Section 13A (2)(i) of the Act, which gave deduction from taxable turnover to the extent of "sale and purchase of exempted goods" under section 13A(2)(i) of the Act, which gave deduction from taxable turnover to the extent of "sale and purchase of exempted goods" under section 13A(2)(i) of the Act, this Court held that Tax Board was justified in holding that even if the exemption is claimed under a conditional Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998, upon satisfaction of such conditions of Notification, the turnover thereof would be the turnover of exempted goods and the assessee was rightly held entitled to claim deduction in respect of said exempted turnover under Section 13A(2)(i) of the Act. A caveat on the exemption being subject to satisfaction of conditions in the Notification was noted in the following terms in the said judgment. "Merely because, the exemption is conditional or is given subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, it does not mean that such goods will fall outside the definition of 'exempted goods'. It is only subject to those conditions when fulfilled then the question of exemption would arise and only then, they will be said to be exempted goods. But once such goods squarely come within the four corners of that Notification. Thus, there Is no doubt that turnover relating to those goods will be turnover of exempted goods and therefore, will fall within the ambit and scope of Section 13A(2)(i) of the Act." 11. But once such goods squarely come within the four corners of that Notification. Thus, there Is no doubt that turnover relating to those goods will be turnover of exempted goods and therefore, will fall within the ambit and scope of Section 13A(2)(i) of the Act." 11. Thus, the goods in question were required to squarely come within the four corners of that Notification and only upon satisfaction of such conditions, which has to be seen for each individual transaction of sale, the Tax Board, as matter of fact, found that turnover was of exempted goods and accordingly, this Court approving the said order of Tax Board rejected the Revenue's revision petition. The said judgment of this Court in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra) never dealt with Notification applicable in the present case, namely, Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 under which actually exemption from turnover tax is granted upon payment of exemption fees required to be paid on the basis of annual gross turnover and under which the question of computation of the taxable turnover and giving deduction of turnover of exempted goods simply does not arise. The scheme of payment of exemption fees fees under Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 is a substitute for regular assessment and payment of turnover tax under Section 13A of the Act after computing the taxable turnover as defined in Section 13A of the Act and after giving deduction of different categories mentioned in Section 13A(2) of the Act. The assessee in the present case obviously on his own volition opted for payment of annual exemption fees under the aforesaid Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "S.No. 1334: F. 4(1)FD/Tax Div/2000-302 dated 30.3.2000 S.O. 378-In exercise of powers conferred by Section 15, RST Act, 1994, the State Govt. [1], hereby exempts a dealer from turnover tax who is liable to pay said tax under Section 13A of the said Act, on the following conditions, namely: 1. That such dealer undertakes to pay-exemption fee as per the following table : Item No. Annual Gross Turnover [in the immediately preceding year] Annual exemption fee pa able (in Rs. ) 1. up to Rs. 50 lacs Nil 2. Rs. 50,00,001 /-to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- Rs. 2,500/- 3. Rs. 1,00,00,001 to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Rs. 4,000/- 4. Rs. 3,00,00,001 to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 5. Rs. 5,00,00,001 to Rs. ) 1. up to Rs. 50 lacs Nil 2. Rs. 50,00,001 /-to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- Rs. 2,500/- 3. Rs. 1,00,00,001 to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Rs. 4,000/- 4. Rs. 3,00,00,001 to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 5. Rs. 5,00,00,001 to Rs. 10,00,00,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 6. Rs. 10,00,00,001 to Rs. 15,00,00,000/- Rs. 30,000/- 7. Rs. 15,00,00,001/- to Rs. 25,00,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 8. Rs. 25,00,00,001/- to Rs. 35,00,00,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 9. Rs. 35,00,00,001/- to Rs. 50,00,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 10. Rs. 50,00,00,001/- to Rs. 75,00,00,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- 11. Rs. 75,00,00,001/- to Rs. 1,00,00,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- 12. Rs. 1,00,00,00,001/- to Rs. 2,50,00,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- 13. Rs. 2,50,00,00,001/- to Rs. 5,00,00,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- 14. Rs. 5,00,00,00,001/- to Rs. 10,00,00,00,000/- Rs. 7,50,000/- 15. Rs. 10,00,00,00,001/- and above Rs. 33,00,000/- 2. That the turnover as disclosed by the dealer duly supported by an affidavit, will be accepted without any query. However, if the business in the immediately preceding year had been carried only for part of the year the gross turnover shall be annualised accordingly for determination of turnover slab under clause 1. 3. That such exemption fee is required to be paid in two equal half yearly instalments and shall be paid up to 30th April and 31st October of the year. However, for the financial year 2000-2001, the due instalment of exemption fee shall be deposited within the period of exercising of the option under clause 6 of the notfn. 4. That the dealer opting for the exemption fee shall not charge or collect such tax under the Act. 5. That for the purpose of turnover tax, there will not be any assessment, survey or inspection of the dealer opting for the scheme, by the department authorities. 6. That the dealer shall opt under this notfn. Up to 31.3.2001 or within 30 days of commencement of his business, whichever is later. 7. That a dealer who commences new business and opts under clause 6 of this notfn shall be required to deposit exemption fee as per clause 1 on his turnover for the period up to 30th September, by immediately following 31st October and for the period up to 31st March, by immediately following 30th April. Superseded by S. No. 1452 dated 29.3.2001." 12. Superseded by S. No. 1452 dated 29.3.2001." 12. This Court in the later decision in the case of Manglam Yarn Agencies (supra) again had an occasion to deal with the question of levy of turnover tax and the assessee contended before this Court in the said case that 'rate Notification dated 30.03.2000 prescribing the rate of turnover tax at 0.25%' would be impliedly superseded and liability of turnover tax under Section 13A of the Act should be deemed to have been slashed down by subsequent Notification dated 17.09.2001 providing for exemption of tax over 2% on the individual transactions of sale or purchase of man-made fiber and yarn. Negativing this contention of the assessee, this Court held that two levies of turnover tax under Section 13A of the Act and levy of sales tax as per charging section 4 operate in different fields and Section 15 of the Act is invoked for granting exemption of tax on individual transactions, per-se, did not exempt the liability to pay turnover tax under section 13A of the Act. The relevant para 8 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference : "8. While it is true that the turnover tax is nothing but tax on turnover viz. Aggregation of sale or purchase of goods and is, therefore, exigible with reference to Entry 54 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, but the exigibility of turnover tax is upon happening of different kind of taxable event. It gets attracted when the gross annual turnover exceeds a particular limit or bench mark. The character of tax remains the tax on sale or purchase of goods, but the levy is attracted if the criteria of its levy is fulfilled as defined in Section 13-A of the Act. The whole of the turnover does not attract the turnover tax. The exclusion of turnover mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 13A has to be made viz. Turnover of exempted goods, turnover of goods sold in the course of inter State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India etc. The whole of the turnover does not attract the turnover tax. The exclusion of turnover mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 13A has to be made viz. Turnover of exempted goods, turnover of goods sold in the course of inter State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India etc. the levy of turnover tax is also subject restrictions imposed under Article 286 of the Constitution of India and Sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act as held by this Court in Merta Trade & Industries' case (supra) but the question is, can rate of turnover tax prescribed in the Notification dated 30.03.2000 at 0.25% on the taxable turnover as determined under Section 13A of the Act exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, be further slashed down by implied exemption by a subsequent Notification about the rate of tax in relation to sale or purchase of all kinds of man made fibers and man made yarn under Notification dated 17.9.2001. The answer has to be in the negative. The reason is that Notification dated 17.9.2001 which is in fact reduced the rate of tax applicable on the said commodity to 2% or in other words granted exemption from rate of tax in excess of 2% on the individual transaction of sale or purchase of the said commodity subject to fulfilment of conditions specified in the said Notification itself. The said Notification issued under Section 15 of the Act which is the only source of power available with the State Government to grant exemption does not refer to tax leviable under Section 13A of the Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue there is no intendment about tax, there is no equity about tax. On a plain reading of Notification as per golden rule of the interpretation i.e. to go by the plain language of the text of the Notification, one can only come to the conclusion that the said Notification dated 17.9.2001 operates in a different field, whereas the levy of turnover tax under Section 13A operates in another field. If the State Government wanted to exempt turnover tax under Section 13A also, nothing prevented the State Government from issuing such separate Notification or to mention it specifically in the same Notification also. If the State Government wanted to exempt turnover tax under Section 13A also, nothing prevented the State Government from issuing such separate Notification or to mention it specifically in the same Notification also. The exemption under Notification dated 17.9.2001 is available with reference to individual transaction of sale or purchase only, is further fortified by the certificate appended in the said Notification as a condition for grant of exemption, which certificate can be given by the purchasing dealer only in respect of individual sale or purchase of goods. There is no concept of implied exemption or exemption by stretching exemption Notification to cover the turnover tax also whereas the same is not clearly exempted under the said Notification dated 17.9.2001. As is well-known on the other hand, the taxing statutes including the exemption Notification have to be strictly construed and plainly read, On a plain reading of the Notification, it does not appears to the Court that the State Government has exempted turnover tax also under the said Notification dated 17.9.2001." 13. Thus, the said later decision although not referring to the previous decision in the case of Suncity Trade Agency (supra), clearly explained the difference between the two levies in the same enactment, namely, RST Act, 1994 and held that exemption under Section 15 of the Act while granted for individual transactions of sale or purchase did not affect the levy of turnover tax on the basis of gross turnover, which is the subject matter of levy under Section 13A of the Act. 14. The later decision of this Court in the case of M/s Ali Mohd. Abdul Mazid (supra), which is very near to the facts of the present case and meets the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee in the present case squarely, this Court held that assessee, a work contractor, once having given his undertaking under Rule 12 of the RST Rules, 1995, could wriggle out of the same and could contend that he should be permitted to revert back to regular assessment procedure ignoring payment of lump-sum exemption fees in pursuance of such undertaking under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1995 and the Court negatived the said contentions in the following terms : "10. The question arising in the present case before this Court in raised in rather altogether different circumstances. The question arising in the present case before this Court in raised in rather altogether different circumstances. According to the assessee, the tax liability originally assessed in his case by the assessing authority was found to be less than the exemption in his case by the assessing authority was found to be less than the exemption fee and, therefore, he tried to wriggle out from his own undertaking given under Rule 12 and go for regular assessment procedure. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Undertaking was filed after the prescribed period of one month, the same deserves to be ignored. He also submitted that for some of the works contracts no such undertaking was even furnished to the assessing authority, therefore, the assessee cannot be bound to opt for the exemption scheme by paying exemption fee @ 1.5%. The said contention of learned counsel for the assessee is not acceptable for the obvious reasons. The reason behind assessee's move to wriggle out of his Undertaking in this case is not very clear. May be he realised that the tax liability otherwise would be less than the exemption fee payable under the said Rule 12. It is well settled that there is no equity about taxation. Principle of equity and liberal or sympathetic consideration have no place in taxing statutes. Once the contractor gives the undertaking and option under Rule 12 to go in for his stream of assessment, sub-rule (5) does not provide for any exit from the same. On the contrary, the said scheme is envisaged for the benefit of assessee-works contractor himself. The cases are very rare where the actual tax liability of such works contract. However, it is not for this Court to examine the factual aspect of the matter as to whether the actual tax liability would be less or more. The question before this Court is as to whether despite undertaking and option of the assessee contractor given to the awarder of such tax, the assessee to go in for regular assessment procedure and obtain refund of such exemption fee deducted by Awarder and made over to Revenue Authorities, as he did in the present case. The answer of this Court is in the negative and against the assessee." 15. The answer of this Court is in the negative and against the assessee." 15. Recently, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Bansal (supra), decided on 13.12.2011, similarly held that since the exemption fees is levied on the basis of total value of the contract, which may include the even taxable portion or non-taxable portion, such a bifurcation at the hands of the Assessing Authority at the time of issuing exemption certificate under the Notification dated 11.08.2006 is neither envisaged nor permitted to be done. The relevant extract in para 10 of the judgment is quoted below for ready reference. "Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that bifurcation of the composite contract for applying item nos. 2 and 3 to different portions of the contract was not permissible in law. Since the exemption fees is levied on the basis of total value of contract, which may include even taxable portion on non-taxable portion, such a bifurcation at the hands of the Assessing Authority at the time of issuing exemption certificate under the Notification dated 11/8/2006 is neither envisaged nor permitted to be done. It is only if a contract ex-facie or prima face falls in any of the specific items of the list appended to the Notification dated 11/8/2006, the Assessing Authority is permitted to issue exemption fee of 1.50% or 2.25%, as the case may be. If such a contract cannot fall under any specific item, resort can be made to the residuary entry only." 16. If such a contract cannot fall under any specific item, resort can be made to the residuary entry only." 16. In the case of M/s Mycon Construction Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the Tax Board, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : (Case Note from SCC's site and Para 19 quoted below) "Sales Tax - Levy of composition fee @ 2% of the total turnover in lieu of the tax on transfer of property involved in execution of works contract leviable under Section 5 B of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Section 17(6) amended in 1997 increasing the composition fee to 4% with retrospective effect from 1-4-1988 - Section 17(6) is constitutionally valid and the challenge on the ground of lack of legislative competence of the state must be repelled - If the legislature has legislative competence to enact a statue and the statue so enacted does not breach any constitutional provision, the same cannot be said to be unconstitutional merely because it is retrospective in operation - Assessee had option to revert to assessment under section 5B. 19. Mr. S.S. Javali, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 7575-77 of 1999 submitted that the appellants had opted under the composite scheme and enjoyed the benefit for almost 9 years. It would be unreasonable to relegate them to the same position that they occupied before they exercised the option for assessment under the composition scheme. He submits that considerations of equity must persuade this court to pass an appropriate direction so that the assessments made on the basis of the options already given are not affected in any manner. Having held that the retrospective operation of the amended provision Is constitutional, and having noticed that the assesses are at liberty to opt for regular assessment under Section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, it would not be appropriate to make such a direction on considerations of equity particularly while dealing with a taxing statute. 17. Having held that the retrospective operation of the amended provision Is constitutional, and having noticed that the assesses are at liberty to opt for regular assessment under Section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, it would not be appropriate to make such a direction on considerations of equity particularly while dealing with a taxing statute. 17. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case also, the assessee could not have asked for a refund of exemption fees paid by him under the Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000, merely because he finds that his turnover representing individual transactions of sale or purchase, are exempted under the Notification SO No. 125 dated 09.07.1998 or the later Notification (Annex-1) SO No. 366 (S.No. 1323) dated 30.03.2000, subject to his having fulfilled the exquisite conditions of the said Notification. From a bare reading of Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 it is clear that the said Notification does not provide for any exit route and withdrawal of applicability of said Notification in the mid-way. The said Notification has to be opted for each assessment year and is applied to the assessee and he is exempted from payment of turnover tax upon his undertaking to pay such exemption fees as per rates given in the slabs in which his only gross turnover including the taxable and exempted turnover would fall. The Notification obviously provides certain facilities, concessions and exemptions to the assessee and he is not only exempted from payment of turnover tax but is also absolved from his obligation and rigmarole of assessment of individual transactions and computation of taxable turnover for the purposes of levy of turnover tax under Section 13A of the Act. As per clause 6 of the said Notification, the dealer shall opt for the Notification within 45 days of its publication or within 30 days of the commencement of his business. The turnover as disclosed by the dealer has to be supported by an affidavit, which will be accepted without any query by the respondent-Department; and the exemption fees is required to be paid in two equal half yearly installments payable before 30th of April and 30th of October of the year and dealer opting for such exemption fees shall not charge or collect such tax under the Act. The word 'such tax' means turnover tax. The word 'such tax' means turnover tax. Thus, the said scheme of payment of exemption fees under the Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000 is not an open ended scheme but both sides packed scheme, having no exit route in between or in the mid of the year. Therefore, a question of refund of exemption fees paid under this Notification cannot simply arise. The assessee, in the present case, has already reaped the benefits flowing to him under the said Notification, upon payment of such exemption fees for these two assessment years. The question of deduction of exempted turnover under Section 13A(2)(i) of the Act is not relevant, while applying the said Notification SO No. 378 dated 30.03.2000. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for this assessee that his turnover being that of exempted goods and he being not liable to pay any turnover tax, the exemption fees paid by him under the said Notification should be refunded back to him is without any merit and deserves to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected. The Tax Board was justified in holding that such a refund would cause unjust enrichment to the assessee in the light of pronouncement in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra). 18. Consequently, this Court finds no force in the present revision petitions filed by the assessee and the same are liable to be dismissed and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs.Revision dismissed. *******