Specific notification prevails over general entry, and settled precedent governs exemption under U.P. Trade Tax provisions.

The exemption under Section 4-A(2)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was treated as governed by settled precedent, which the assessing authority had to apply when reconsidering the matter; the earlier view was held to continue to control the exemption question. Chicory Roots were held to fall under the later specific notification, not the earlier general entry relating to fresh roots, because a specific entry prevails over a general one. The impugned orders were modified and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with these answers on the two questions of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption under Section 4-A(2)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 applies to base production or to production in excess of base production and whether it is to be determined with reference to the date of production or the entire year. (ii) Whether Chicory Roots are covered by Notification No. 306 dated 29.01.2001 or by Notification No. 7038 dated 31.01.1985 as amended by Notification No. 595 dated 10.04.1999.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption under Section 4-A(2)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 applies to base production or to production in excess of base production and whether it is to be determined with reference to the date of production or the entire year.

Analysis: The question had already been answered by binding precedent, which had been affirmed in appeal. The Tribunal's remand did not displace that settled position, and the Assessing Authority was required to apply the earlier while deciding the matter afresh.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the revisionist.

Issue (ii): Whether Chicory Roots are covered by Notification No. 306 dated 29.01.2001 or by Notification No. 7038 dated 31.01.1985 as amended by Notification No. 595 dated 10.04.1999.

Analysis: Chicory Roots were specifically covered by the later notification, whereas the earlier notification contained only a general entry relating to fresh roots. A specific entry prevails over a general entry, so the specific notification governed the tax liability.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the revisionist.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were modified and the matter was sent back for decision in accordance with the answers given on the two questions of law, resulting in disposal of both revisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later notification specifically covers a commodity, it prevails over an earlier notification containing only a general entry, and settled precedent on an exemption issue must be applied by the assessing authority.

---