Specific tariff entry prevails over general classification; concessional levy cannot defeat statutory reassessment or estoppel against statute.

Submersible electrical pumps were treated as power driven pumps under the specific entry for pumps, not as general electrical goods under the residuary electrical-goods entry, because the more specific tariff item prevails over the general one. On that classification, reassessment of turnover was upheld where the goods had been assessed at a lower rate than the rate properly applicable. The earlier concessional levy could not be relied on through promissory estoppel, since there is no estoppel against a statute and equitable considerations cannot override taxing provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether submersible electrical pumps were classifiable under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or under item 99; (ii) whether the reassessment of the turnover for the relevant years could be resisted on the basis of promissory estoppel and the earlier concessional levy.

Issue (i): Whether submersible electrical pumps were classifiable under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or under item 99.

Analysis: Item 41 covered all kinds of electrical goods not specified elsewhere in the Schedule, while item 99 specifically covered power driven pumps for liquids. Submersible electrical pumps were held to be power driven pumps operating on electricity and understood in common parlance as pumps of the same genus as other power driven pumps. Since item 99 was the more specific entry, the goods could not be treated as mere electrical goods under item 41.

Conclusion: The goods were classifiable under item 99 and not under item 41, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment of the turnover for the relevant years could be resisted on the basis of promissory estoppel and the earlier concessional levy.

Analysis: The statutory reassessment power under section 16(1)(b) permitted reopening where turnover had been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it was assessable. Once the goods were held to fall under item 99, the concessional rate linked to item 41 could not apply. The Court held that there can be no estoppel against a statute, and equitable considerations cannot override taxing provisions.

Conclusion: The reassessment was valid and the plea of promissory estoppel failed, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order restoring the reassessment was upheld, leaving the tax liability on the higher classification intact.

Ratio Decidendi: For tax classification, the specific tariff entry prevails over a general entry, and a concession tied to one classification cannot override a statutory reassessment when the goods are held to fall under another entry; estoppel cannot operate against the statute.

---