1. The question of law raised in these two Tax Revision Cases is whether the itemG.I. Pipes will fall within the category of declared goods as enumerated in S.14(iv) (xi) of the Central Sales-tax Act. The petitioner is a dealer in G.I. pipes. The assessment relates to assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee had claimed exemption from levying additional tax and surcharge on the tax levied on the sales turnover of G. I. pipes. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority. The appeals before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the further appeals before the Tribunal had been decided against the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that G.I. pipes are declared goods within the meaning of S.14 and 15 of the Central Sales-tax Act and also the Second Schedule of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963, because, the G. I. pipes dealt in by the assessee are only steel tubes and it is contended that steel tubes popularly known as G. I. pipes come within the meaning of S.14(iv)(xi) of the Central Sales-tax Act corresponding to item 3(ii)(k) of the Second Schedule of the General Sales-tax Act. The claim was that because the goods dealt in by the assessee are declared goods the levy of tax in respect of the same is controlled by S.15 of the Central Act and tax can be levied only at the point of first sale within the State and at the rate of 4 per cent and no additional tax or surcharge can be levied in respect of such goods.

3. The claim for exemption is countered by the respondent stating that G. I. pipes fall within item 46 in Schedule I with effect from 16-9-1980 and is not declared goods falling within Second Schedule or S 14 of the Central Act. It is submitted that the entries in clause (iv) of S.14 as also the entry 3(ii) are exhaustive and there cannot be any addition to that list by construing a specified item as including other goods. Reference was made to the decision in State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons, 37 S. T. C. 583 (S. C.) by counsel for the revision petitioner while the Government Pleader placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra, (1976) 37 STC. 319 [LQ/SC/1976/16] and State of Tamil Nadu v. India Metal Industries (1980) 46 STC. 304 (Mad) [LQ/MadHC/1979/141] .

4. S.14 of the Central Sales-tax Act reads:

"14. Certain goods to be of special importance in Inter State Trade or Commerce: It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in inter State trade or commerce;"

and then enumerates is categories (i) to (x) such goods. Entry (iv) reads:

"iv) iron and steel, that is to say,

(i) ... ... ... ...

(ii) ... ... ... ...

.... ... ... ... ...

(iv) ... ... ... ...

(v) ... ... ... ...

(vi) ... ... ... ...

(vii) ... ... ... ...

(viii) ... ... ... ...

(ix) ... ... ... ...

(x) ... ... ... ...

(xi) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths, including tube fittings".

S.15 states that every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the restrictions and conditions thereunder. One such restriction is that the tax payable under the State law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed four percent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage. In view of this restriction if G. I. pipes dealt in by the petitioner falls within the category of declared goods there cannot be any levy of additional sales tax or surcharge.

5. Under S.5 of the State Act, in the case of goods specified in the First or Second Schedule, every dealer shall pay tax on his taxable turnover, at the rates and only at the points specified against such goods in the said Schedules. Entry 46 in First Schedule reads: "G.I. pipes and cast iron pipes"

The point of levy is at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under S.5 and the rate of tax is 4 per cent. The Second Schedule specifies declared goods in respect of which a single point tax only is leviable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of S.5. Serial Number 3 (ii) specifies Iron and steel and this entry proceeds to enumerate the items falling within the category of iron and steel. Serial No. 3(ii) (k) reads:

"(k) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diametres and lengths, including tube fittings."

6. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi issued a letter dated 20-11-1973 clarifying the scope of the entry iron and steel as shown in S.14(iv) of the Central Act. The Director General of Technical Development advised the Government that G.I. pipes, black pipe, black and galvanised pipes and tubes would fall within the scope of item (xi) of S.14(iv) and the steel tubes etc. and this advice of the Directorate was brought to the notice of the Sales tax authorities in the State for their guidance.

7. A comprehensive list of specified declared iron and steel goods have been brought under the head iron and steel in S.14 (iv). The enumeration is not illustrative but exhaustive. It is clear that even each sub-category of a sub-item retains its identity as a commercially separate item for the purpose of sales-tax so long as it retains the identity. In order that the item falls within the category of declared goods in entry (iv) it is necessary that it must be brought within one or other of the entries therein. The Supreme Court has, in State of Tamilnadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra; (1976) 37 S. T. C. 319, pointed out thus:

"In the context of single point sales tax, subject to special conditions when imposed on separate categories of specified goods, the expression "that is to say" is apparently meant to exhaustively enumerate the kinds of goods on a given list. The purpose of an enumeration in a statute dealing with sales tax at a single point in a series of sales would, very naturally, be to indicate the types of goods each of which would constitute a separate class for a series of sales. Otherwise, the listing itself loses all meaning and would be without any purpose behind it."

The Court also observed:

"As we all know, salestax law is intended to tax sales of different commercial commodities and not to tax the production or manufacture of particular substance out of which these commodities may have been made. As soon as separate commercial commodities emerge or come into existence, they become separately taxable goods or entities for purposes of salestax. Where commercial goods, without change of their identity as such goods, are merely subjected to some processing or finishing or are merely joined together, they may remain commercially the goods which cannot be taxed again, in a series of sales, so long as they retain their identity as goods of a particular type."

8. It is, therefore, necessary to determine whether there is complete identity of the commercial commodity when G. I. pipes are referred to as steel tubes, for, each of the categories falling under iron and steel constitute a new species of commercial commodity. Following the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra, 37 STC. 319 [LQ/SC/1976/16] , the Madras High Court has, in Dy. Commr v. Mohammad Ibrahim Marakayar Sons, (1980) 46 STC. 22 [LQ/MadHC/1979/489] . held that galvanised plain sheets, referred to as G.P. sheets or C. R. Sheets, would not fall within the category of iron and steel under entry (iv) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Act, 1959. Again in State of Tamil Nadu v. India Metal Industries, 46 STC. 304 [LQ/MadHC/1979/141] (Mad) the Court held:

"The commercial character or identity of steel scrap is wholly different from steel ingots, steel billets, steel bars and rods. The mere fact that steel scraps had already suffered tax at some point earlier would not confer immunity from taxation when the steel scrap was converted into steel ingots, steel billets, steel bars and rods and sold".

9. The category of goods called galvanised iron pipes (for short G. I. pipe) have acquired a different commercial quality as a result of the process of galvanisation. The enumeration of the sub-items (vi) and (xi) would show that galvanised sheets and black sheets are two different commodities just as welded steel tubes and seamless steel tubes. Therefore, in the absence of a specified inclusion in category (xi) galvanised iron pipes cannot be categorised as a commercial commodity satisfying the identity of steel tubes. G. I. pipes have also been treated as a specified category by including in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The legislature has thus declared steel tubes mentioned in S.3 (ii) (k) as not the same as G. I. pipes, or in other words, G. I. pipe as not falling within the category of steel tubes. The clarification by the Government notification referred to by learned counsel for the assessee has no force of law. The decision in State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons, 37 STC. 583 [LQ/SC/1976/145] (SC.) also does not advance the assessees case. What the Supreme Court said in that case is that the Ministry of Finance is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Central Act but is also familiar with the nature and quality of the commodities as also their use from time to time, and therefore, if such an authority issued a notification including certain commodities under the head of oil-seeds, as defined under the Central Act, there is nothing wrong in preferring such an opinion as good evidence, while stating that such notification has no statutory force and as such is not binding on the Sales tax Officer. Merely because there had been attempt to enlarge the scope of the definition by such a clarification which is only advisory it cannot have the effect of including the item in the Schedule. The advice by the Directorate can at best be considered as a material for drawing a conclusion regarding the nature of the commodity. But when the legislature has understood and has provided for the same as different from the items specified in the Second Schedule the statutory provision has to prevail over the clarification for guidance. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and the lower authority, therefore, appears to be correct and calls for no interference.

The Tax Revision cases are dismissed. Dismissed.