Specific taxing entry prevails over general fertilizer exemption; powdered bones remained taxable and the Article 14 challenge failed.

Bone-meal was held not to fall within the general fertilizer exemption because the statute separately dealt with powdered bones as taxable goods. The apparent overlap between Schedule I and the specific entries in Schedules II and III was resolved by harmonious construction, with the specific entries prevailing so that they were not rendered ineffective. The later amendment excluding powdered and crushed bones from the fertilizer entry was treated as clarificatory. The levy on sales of powdered bones also survived the Article 14 challenge, as fiscal classification was found to be within legislative discretion and no hostile discrimination was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bone-meal was covered by the exemption for fertilizer under Schedule I and therefore not liable to sales tax; (ii) whether the entries specifically mentioning powdered bones in Schedules II and III prevailed over the general exemption entry for fertilizer; (iii) whether the levy on sales of powdered bones offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether bone-meal was covered by the exemption for fertilizer under Schedule I and therefore not liable to sales tax.

Analysis: The Act created an apparent conflict between the general exemption for fertilizer in Schedule I and the specific taxation entries for powdered bones in Schedules II and III. The expression fertilizer was wide enough to include bone-meal in a general sense, but the statutory scheme showed that powdered bones were separately dealt with as taxable goods. The apparent overlap had to be resolved by harmonious construction so that both sets of entries were given effect.

Conclusion: Bone-meal was not exempt as fertilizer and remained taxable.

Issue (ii): Whether the entries specifically mentioning powdered bones in Schedules II and III prevailed over the general exemption entry for fertilizer.

Analysis: The specific entries for powdered bones were treated as controlling the general exemption entry. The Court held that a construction which would render the specific entries useless or a dead letter could not be accepted. The later amendment excluding powdered and crushed bones from the fertilizer entry was also treated as clarifying the original ambiguity.

Conclusion: The specific entries for powdered bones prevailed over the general fertilizer exemption.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy on sales of powdered bones offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: In fiscal legislation, the legislature has wide latitude in classification, and a taxing provision is not invalid unless clear hostile discrimination is shown. No material was placed to show that dealers in powdered bones and dealers in other fertilizers formed the same class for Article 14 purposes or that the classification was unreasonable.

Conclusion: The levy did not violate Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders were sustained because powdered bones were held taxable under the Act and the constitutional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute contains a general exemption and a specific taxing entry covering the same goods, the statute must be read harmoniously so that the specific entry prevails and the general exemption is confined accordingly.

---