Through this further appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 an order of a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 30-3-1998 is assailed.

2. Through that order the learned Tribunal opined that the amendment in section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 introduced by Finance Act, 1996 could be applied to the case of the assessee though it pertained to tax adjustment for the period of January, 1995 to June, 1995. Reliance in that regard was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Municipal Committee, Kasur v. Messrs Mehboob (1975 SCMR 180).

3. The respondent is an assessee of the Sales Tax Department was proceeded -against on the ground of its having wrongly claimed adjustment of input tax to the tune of Rs.34.41,434 during the January, 1995 to June, 1995 on the entire raw material purchased production. The department was of the view that such adjustment allowable only proportionate to the quantity of raw material consumed during each month which was the tax period and not in anticipation future consumption.

4. The assessee failed before the First Appellate Authority but the Tribunal, as said above, considering the aforesaid amendment to be procedural in nature reached the conclusion that it could be made applicable to the period before the amendment on account of its being beneficial to the subject. Particularly for the reason that its appeal was still pending and therefore, the assessee was entitled to its benefit.

4-A. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are not inclined to entertain the appeal for two reasons firstly, that in substance the adjustment of input tax by the assessee during High Court aforesaid period caused no prejudice the interest of the Revenue. Secondly, the learned counsel for the assessee is correct in pointing out that the amendment introduced in section 7(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by Finance Act, 1996 was not only clarificatory but also curative in nature.' Therefore, the ratio settled in re: Prime Commercial Bank and others v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tai 1997 PTD 605 is attracted to the facts in hand. Learned counsel for the assessee is also correct in pointing out that if the departmental interpretation is accepted then the provision of section 10 of Sales Tax Act providing for adjustment and refund would be rendered superfluous.

5. That being so no case for interference is made out.

This appeal shall be dismissed in limine.