Fertilizer exemption prevails over later general chemicals entry; chemical fertilizers remain within the exempt class.

An exemption notification using the unqualified term "fertilizers" was read broadly to include Chilean nitrate, even though the commodity could also serve other uses. The later taxing entry for "chemicals of all kinds" did not impliedly repeal or override the earlier specific fertilizer exemption. The term "fertilizer" was held wide enough to cover chemical fertilizer as well, absent any express exclusion. Read together, the notifications left Chilean nitrate within the exempt class, so sales tax was not exigible and the specific exemption prevailed over the general later entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Chilean nitrate, being a fertilizer that could also be used for other purposes, was liable to sales tax or was exempt as fertilizer under the relevant notification; (ii) Whether Chilean nitrate could be treated as a fertilizer and a chemical fertilizer, and whether the term "fertilizer" in the notification included chemical fertilizer; (iii) Whether the general entry "chemicals of all kinds" could override the earlier specific exemption for fertilizers.

Issue (i): Whether Chilean nitrate, being a fertilizer that could also be used for other purposes, was liable to sales tax or was exempt as fertilizer under the relevant notification.

Analysis: The exemption notification used the unqualified term "fertilizers" and did not limit it to any particular kind. The later notification taxing "chemicals of all kinds" could not be read as repealing or overriding the earlier specific exemption by implication. A commodity covered by the exempted category remained exempt merely because it might also be capable of another use.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to pay sales tax on Chilean nitrate and the commodity remained exempt as a fertilizer.

Issue (ii): Whether Chilean nitrate could be treated as a fertilizer and a chemical fertilizer, and whether the term "fertilizer" in the notification included chemical fertilizer.

Analysis: Chilean nitrate could properly be described as a fertilizer and also as a chemical fertilizer. The exemption notification did not confine itself to non-chemical or natural fertilizers, and no warrant existed for reading such a limitation into it. The term "fertilizer" was wide enough to include chemical fertilizer.

Conclusion: The term "fertilizer" in the notification included chemical fertilizer, and Chilean nitrate fell within that exempt class.

Issue (iii): Whether the general entry "chemicals of all kinds" could override the earlier specific exemption for fertilizers.

Analysis: The later taxing entry was general, while the earlier exemption dealt specifically with fertilizers. The rule that a general later provision does not derogate from an earlier special provision applied. Reading the notifications together, the specific exemption for fertilizers prevailed until the later notification expressly changed the position.

Conclusion: The general entry "chemicals of all kinds" did not displace the earlier exemption for fertilizers.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, with the matter sent back for reconsideration in conformity with the answers given.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification specifically covers a commodity by a general term such as "fertilizers", that specific exemption prevails over a later broad entry like "chemicals of all kinds", and the term may include chemical fertilizers unless the notification clearly excludes them.

---