Commercial meaning of taxing entries controls classification of aluminium rods; special single-point levy did not apply.

Aluminium rods are not covered by entry 64 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because taxing entries must be construed in their ordinary commercial sense. In metal trade usage, rods are distinct from bars: rods are understood as long round pieces, while bars generally have a non-round cross-section. The later insertion of "rods and wire rods" into entry 64 supported this narrower reading. The court also rejected a construction that would treat the entry as covering all aluminium articles, since that would undermine the specific items listed and the scheme of the single-point levy. The goods were therefore taxable under the general charging provision, not the special levy.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium rods fall within entry 64 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, so as to be taxable at the single-point rate under section 3(2), or whether they are taxable under the general charging provision in section 3(1).

Analysis: The schedule entry had to be construed in the sense in which the goods are understood in ordinary commercial parlance. In the metal trade, a bar and a rod are distinct marketable commodities, even if made of the same metal. A bar is ordinarily understood as a long metal piece with sides or a non-round cross-section, whereas a rod is a long round piece. The court also noted that the later amendment inserting "rods and wire rods" into entry 64 supported this construction. The broader argument that the entire entry covered all aluminium articles was rejected because it would render the specific sub-items meaningless and would contradict the scheme of section 3(2), which applies only to goods specifically mentioned in the First Schedule.

Conclusion: Aluminium rods do not fall within entry 64 of the First Schedule and are therefore not liable to the single-point levy under section 3(2); they are taxable under section 3(1). The assessee's contention succeeded and the contrary order of the Board was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was held to have been made on the wrong basis, and the assessee obtained restoration of the appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A commodity in a taxing entry must be construed according to its ordinary commercial meaning, and only goods specifically mentioned in the schedule can be subjected to the special single-point levy.

---