Specific tariff entry for bearings prevails over end-use classification, limiting pre-amendment tax to the notified rate.

A specific tariff entry for bearings governed pre-amendment sales under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, so the commodity could not be reclassified at a higher rate merely because purchasers intended different end use. The revenue could not shift to the motor vehicle parts entry on the basis of use when the statute did not require the seller to verify ultimate application. The later amendment was treated as clarificatory of the earlier classification scheme. As a result, the pre-amendment rate remained 4 per cent under the specific entry, while the higher demand based on end use was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether bearings sold before the 2007 amendment to the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 were taxable only at the rate specified in the specific entry for bearings, and whether the revenue could apply a higher rate by treating them as motor vehicle parts depending on end use.

Analysis: The Schedule contained a specific entry for bearings at 4 per cent in Schedule II(a), while the revenue sought to apply 12.5 per cent by placing them under the entry for motor vehicle components and accessories in Schedule II(b) on the basis of the use to which the bearings were put. The Court held that, for the pre-amendment period, the statute did not permit different tax rates on the same commodity merely because purchasers intended different uses. A seller could not be expected to make enquiry into the ultimate use of each bearing, and the revenue could not travel to a broader or residuary classification when a specific entry already governed the goods. The later amendment was treated as clarificatory of the legislative position and as confirming that the earlier confusion existed because of the manner in which the entries operated.

Conclusion: The pre-amendment sale of bearings was taxable only at 4 per cent under the specific entry, and the contrary demand at 12.5 per cent was unsustainable. The impugned clarifications and decisions were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in challenging the higher tax classification for the pre-amendment period, while the petitioner remained bound to deposit tax already collected at the higher rate from the date on which it actually collected it.

Ratio Decidendi: When a taxing statute contains a specific entry covering a commodity, the revenue cannot displace that entry by relying on a broader or different classification based solely on end use, especially where the statute does not require the seller to ascertain such use.

---