JUDGMENT N. Kumar - These two appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the revisional authority who has disallowed the benefit of exemption granted by the appellate authority to the assessees. As the question involved in both the appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order. The assessees in both these cases are registered dealers trading in arecanut and black pepper. They are effecting both local sales and consignment sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The assessees availed of transitional relief on the sales tax suffered arecanut and black pepper, which was held in stock during the period from April 1, 2004 to April 1, 2005. On verification of books of accounts, on the ground that the assessees are not entitled to transitional relief, proceedings were initiated under section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In the said proceedings, the assessing authority allowed the exemption from payment of Central sales tax as per notification dated May 31, 2003 for stock purchase prior to April 1, 2004. However, the said benefit was not extended for purchase of arecanut during the period from April 1, 2004 to April 1, 2005, which was sold subsequent to April 1, 2005 in the course of inter-State trade. Thus, he disallowed the exemption claimed during the transitional period on the ground that he has already availed of the benefit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessees preferred appeals to the Joint Commissioner of Appeals. The Joint Commissioner held that by virtue of section 18 of the KVAT Act, the benefit to which the assessees are entitled to under the notification dated May 31, 2002 was available to all purchases made which suffered KST during the period April 1, 2004 to April 1, 2005 and the assessees are not liable to pay Central sales tax, if the said goods are sold outside Karnataka and therefore, he granted the relief and set aside the order of the assessing authority. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo motu proceedings of revision under section 64(1) of the Act on the ground that the benefit of the notification cannot be availed of from April 1, 2005. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo motu proceedings of revision under section 64(1) of the Act on the ground that the benefit of the notification cannot be availed of from April 1, 2005. Rule 166(5A) inserted from April 1, 2006 is effective for the period during which the transit relief under section 18 read with rule 166 is applicable. The transit relief is no longer applicable from January 1, 2006 as per the provisions of section 18 read with rule 166 and consequently, this rule inserted is only clarificatory in nature and does not have retrospective effect. After hearing the assessees, he proceeded to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and restored the order of assessing authority and in fact, he also directed that the exemption granted for inter-State sales prior to April 1, 2005 should be collected. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessees are in appeals before this court. Sri Indrakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessees, assailing the impugned order contended that section 18 of the KVAT Act extends the benefit enjoyed by the assessee in respect of goods purchased on or after April 1, 2004 which has suffered KST and which is used for resale at the commencement of the KVAT Act. Therefore, the contention that the moment KVAT Act is passed, exemption notification stood denotified and the assessees are not entitled to the benefit is erroneous. The exemption which is claimed by the assessee read as under : "Notification No. FD 119 CSL 2002 (3), dated 31st May, 2002 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Government of Karnataka, being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that with effect from the first day of June, 2002, the tax payable by a dealer under section 7 of the said Act on the sale of goods specified below, made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, to a registered dealer or the Government shall be exempt subject to production of declaration in form C or certificate in form D, duly filled and signed by the registered dealer or the Government to whom the said goods are sold - (1) to (3) ... (4) Arecanut, coffee beans and coffee seeds (whether raw or roasted), horse gram (hurali), halasande, tamarind and tamarind seeds on which tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) has already been paid." This is a notification issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under the notification, the benefit is given to a dealer who has paid tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in respect of arecanut and other seeds mentioned therein. If arecanut has suffered sales tax, he is exempted from paying Central sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessees have paid KST. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka exempted with effect form the first day of April, 2005, the tax payable by a dealer under the said Act on the sale or purchase of all goods except the following goods, namely :- (1) Petrol including aviation fuel. (2) Motor spirits not falling under item (1) above. (3) Sugar cane. The said notification came to be issued because the Karnataka State Legislature enacted the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, providing for levy of tax on the purchase or sale in the State of Karnataka. In other words, tax except in respect of the aforesaid three items is levied under the KVAT Act. Section 18 of the KVAT Act providing for transitional relief reads as under : "18. Transitional provisions. - Transitional provisions covering relief on tax paid under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) on stock in hand relating to goods purchased on or after first day of April, 2004 and used for manufacture or resale, at the date of commencement of this Act, shall be as prescribed." The reason behind these transitional provisions is that the VAT Act came into force from April 1, 2005. The benefit which was conferred under the KST Act, 1957 on dealers was extended under this Act for purchases made one year prior to coming into force of the VAT Act which are used for manufacture or resale on the date of commencement of the VAT Act. Section 18 specifically mentions that the said benefit shall be as prescribed. The benefit which was conferred under the KST Act, 1957 on dealers was extended under this Act for purchases made one year prior to coming into force of the VAT Act which are used for manufacture or resale on the date of commencement of the VAT Act. Section 18 specifically mentions that the said benefit shall be as prescribed. Rule 166 of the VAT Rules deals with transitional relief of stock in hand and in turn extended the benefit mentioned in section 18. However, the said provision was amended by the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2006 incorporating the said sub-rule (5A), which came into effect from March 31, 2006. However, by a further amendment on April 26, 2006, rule 166 itself was omitted from the Rules. Rule 166(5A) reads as under : "(5A). No relief shall be allowed under sub-rule (1), in respect of any goods taxable under the Act held in stock, which are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce on which no tax is payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956)." Both the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority proceeded on the assumption firstly that when VAT Act came into force the exemption notification on which the assessee relies on is no more in force. Secondly, under the provisions of the VAT Act, when the assessee has availed of the transitional benefit, he is not entitled to exemption claimed under the said notification. The revisional authority in holding so not only denied the transitional benefit for the existing period he even denied the benefit prior to the transitional period. As is clear from the aforesaid provision, the exemption provision is under the Central Sales Tax Act. The provisions of the said Act or the notification issued under the said Act are in no way affected to any extent. All that notification says is that if a dealer has paid the tax under the State law, he need not pay tax under the said Act for inter-State sales prior to April 1, 2005. Tax payable under the KST Act, after April 1, 2005 is payable under the value added tax. Only if the tax is paid under the local law, the dealer would be entitled to the exemption form payment of Central sales tax in connection with the inter-State sales. Tax payable under the KST Act, after April 1, 2005 is payable under the value added tax. Only if the tax is paid under the local law, the dealer would be entitled to the exemption form payment of Central sales tax in connection with the inter-State sales. As the notification stands, there is no reference to VAT and it only refers to Karnataka sales tax Act to the transitional relief. A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it very clear that once a dealer has paid Karnataka sales tax under the KST Act, he is entitled to the exemption under the notification. In that view of the matter, the authorities are in total error in taking note of section 18, rule 166 and amendment of rule 166 to deny the benefit of exemption under the enactment, which have in no way been dented by any of these subsequent events, by way of the amendments, omissions and deletion. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to deny the benefit to which the assessees are entitled to which is conferred on them under the notification under a parliamentary Legislation. Hence, we pass the following : ORDER 1. Appeals are allowed. 2. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority is hereby set aside. The order of the assessing authority is restored.