Taxability of maize starch under later statutory entry prevailed over earlier exemption-based argument, with assessment remedies remaining available.

Maize starch was discussed as falling within the later statutory entry taxing sago and starch of any kind at 4 per cent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, notwithstanding reliance on an earlier exemption notification and a Madras High Court ruling on millet products. The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision predated the present entry and that objections could still be raised before the assessing authority, with statutory appeal available if needed. It also stated that clarifications under Section 28-A cannot override binding High Court or Supreme Court rulings on an identical issue, but that point alone did not justify interference with the clarification in these proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned clarification treating maize starch as taxable at 4 per cent under Entry 61 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was liable to be set aside, and whether the petitioner could directly assail the clarification instead of pursuing objections before the assessing authority.

Analysis: The clarification was challenged on the footing that an earlier exemption notification and the Madras High Court decision treating products of millets as including maize starch supported exemption. The Tribunal noted, however, that the later statutory entry specifically covered sago and starch of any kind at 4 per cent, and that the earlier High Court decision was rendered before the present entry came into force. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner could raise objections before the assessing authority and pursue the statutory appellate remedy if necessary. It further stated that clarifications issued under Section 28-A cannot override binding decisions of the High Court or Supreme Court on an identical issue, but that proposition did not by itself warrant interference with the impugned clarification in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The impugned clarification was not set aside, and the Original Petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the clarification and left the assessee to work out objections in the assessment proceedings and, if required, in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax clarification will not be interdicted in writ-type proceedings merely because an earlier exemption-based understanding existed, where the later statutory entry expressly covers the commodity in question and an effective statutory remedy remains available before the assessing authority.

---