JUDGMENT
R.S. Kejriwal, J.
1. This revision has been filed under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order dated 30-11-89, passed by Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Jaipur.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner carries on business of manufacturing and sale of tractor pistons. The head office, of the petitioner is situated at New Delhi and its branch office is situated in Bani Park, Jaipur. On 19-10-87, the petitioner sold piston sets for tractors to Messers Insalsa Pvt. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur, for a sum of Rs. 9,431.91 and charged 10% sales tax plus 20% surcharge. The purchaser M/s. Insalsa Pvt. Ltd. Co. objected to the charging of sales tax at the rate of 10% for the reason that the goods in question were tractor parts and they can be used only in tractors and not in other vehicles and since the rate of tax on tractors and their parts and accessories is only 4% under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, therefore, the charging of sales tax at the rate of 10% instead of 4% is illegal. The purchaser also asked the petitioner for the refund of tax charged in excess of 4%.
3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was forced to file an application under Section 12(A) of the Act before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, for determination of the following question:
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case sales of tractor piston sets made by the petitioner to M/s. Insalsa Pvt. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur, vide their bill No. 119 dated 1910-87, would attract the Rajasthan Sales Tax at the rate of 4%?
4. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur vide its order dated 28-1-1988 held that there is a specific entry No. 11 for ‘Pistons’ on which tax is leviable at the rate of 10% and as such he answered the question as under:
The sale of pistons vide bill No. JPR/BZ/119 dated 19-10-87, made by M/s. Shri Ram & Rings Ltd., Jaipur, was taxable at 10% as per the above referred notifications and has been rightly taxed as such.
5. Against this order, the petitioner went in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 30-11-1989, held that the Additional Commissioner should not have entertained the petition under Section 12(A) of the Act as the matter was already decided by the Board of Revenue in its earlier decision reported in 1974 R.R.D. 156. The Tribunal further held that the piston is taxable at the rate of 10%.
6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come in revision.
7. I have heard Mr. S.M. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Bafna, counsel for the department. Mr. Bafna raised a preliminary objection that as the matter was already covered by the decision of the Board of Revenue, reported in 1974 RRD 156, the Additional Commissioner should not have entertained the application of the petitioner under Section 12-A of the Act. He submits that the present revision arises against the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, confirming the order of Addl. Commissioner and as such the revision is not maintainable.
8. On the other hand Mr. Mehta argued that Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal has also decided the question on merits holding that piston is taxable at the rate of 10% and as such the present revision is maintainable. He submits that had the Tribunal rejected the appeal only on the ground that application under Section 12-A of the Act was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Board of Revenue reported in 1974 RRD 156, the matter would have been different but when the Tribunal has decided the question on merits, the order can be challenged only before this court in revision. I agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Since the Tribunal has also decided the appeal on merits holding that piston is taxable @ of 10% and not @ 4%, in my view the petitioner can challenge the same in revision before this court, and as such the revision in maintainable. On merits it has been argued by Mr. Mehta that there is a specific Govt. notification dated 6-3-78, which levied 4% sales tax on tractors and spare parts thereof. The relevant part of the notification reads as under:
S. No. 379 F. 4 (21) FD Gr. IV/78-2 dated 6-3-78.
S.O. 187, – In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the RST Act, 1954, and in supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf, the State Government hereby notifies that with immediate effect the rate of tax payable by a dealer in respect of goods, specified in column 2 of the list annexed hereto, shall be as shown against them in column 3 of the said list.
S.No. Description of goods Rate of tax
3. Tractors and spare parts thereof
and cultivators, harrows, tillers
with or without seeding attachments,
seed drills and land levellers worked
or operated by tractors. 4%
9. He argued that Government has levied sales tax only at the rate of 4% on tractors and spare parts thereof, the sales tax can not be charged more than 4% on the sale of tractors and spare parts thereof. He argued that piston of tractors is spare part of tractors and as such sales tax can not be charged more than 4%. He further argued that this is specific entry, whereas entry No. 11 in the Government Notification dated 9-3-70 is a general entry, which reads as under:
S.No. Description of goods Rate of tax
11. Ball bearings, fuel injunction
equipment and pistons 10%
He argued that pistons are used in all types of motor vehicles and as such this entry is general entry. The entry No. 3 of the notification dated 6-3-78 is specific entry. He argued that sales tax on pistons which are used in tractors can be charged only at the rate of 4% whereas the sales tax pistons used in other motor vehicles can be charged at the rate of 10%. He argued that when there are two entries on the same subject., the special entry excludes the general entry. In support of his argument he placed reliance on a judgment of Madras High Court reported in Bimetal Bearings Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 (80) STC 167.
10. His second argument is that the notification dated 6-3-78 is of subsequent date and as such it should be presumed that notification dated 9-3-70 has been superseded by the notification dated 6-3-78.
11. His third argument is that when two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which favours the assessee should be preferred. He argued that under such circumstances also sales tax on pistons which are used in tractors can not be charged more than 4% as prescribed in notification dated 6-3-78.
12. On the other hand Mr. Bafna counsel for the department argued that entry no. 11 of the Government Notification dated 9-3-70 is specific entry regarding piston. He argued that when there is specific entry of piston then tax can be charged only on the basis of this entry on all kinds of pistons including piston used in tractors. He further argued that in entry No. 11 of the aforesaid notification, there are no words excluding pistons used in tractors. His argument is that the words used in the entry are clear and there is vagueness. He argued that the words used should be given their natural interpretation and as such the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal is proper and correct and does not require any interference by this Court. It is a settled law that special law excludes the general law. Entry No. 11 of the notification dated 9-3-70, prescribing tax at the rate of 10% on ball-bearings, fuel injunction equipment and pistons is a general entry. Ball bearings, fuel injunction equipment and pistons are used in all type of motor vehicles. After the issue of this notification, the government issued another notification dated 6-3-78. By entry No. 3 of the said notification, sales tax has been levied at the rate of 4% on tractors and spare parts thereof. This notification was issued with an intention to give relief to agriculturist This notification has been issued subsequently superseding all previous notifications. It is not denied that piston is also a spare part of tractor. In my view the entry No. 11 of the notification dated 9-3-70 is general, whereas entry No. 3 of notification dated 6-3-78 is a specific entry. Consequently, in my view sales tax can be charged on pistons used in tractors at the rate of 4% and not at the rate of 10% as mentioned in entry No. 11 of the Govt. notification dated 9-3-70.
13. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 30-11-89, passed by Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal is set-aside and I hold that sales tax on tractor pistons can be charged only in accordance with entry No. 3 of the Govt. notification dated 6-3-78 and not in accordance with entry No. 11 of the Govt. notification dated 9-3-70.