Puttaswamy, J.

1. This appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order No. SMP 20/83-84 dated 16th January, 1984, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore ("Commissioner"), made under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 ("KST Act").

2. M/s. Associated Mechanical Industries, Belgaum, the assessee-appellant, a partnership firm of partners inter alia engaged in selling "GI" pipes is a registered dealer on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Belgaum (ACCT), under the KST Act and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (CST Act). The assessee generally purchases GI pipes from a manufacture called Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited, Ahmedabad (GST Ltd.), which has its sales office at Bangalore City. The GST Ltd. is also a registered dealer on the file of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-I), Bangalore, under the KST Act and CST Act and on their sales to the assessee, it had paid sales tax due to the State of Karnataka under the KST Act.

3. For the assessment period from 1st July, 1977, to 30th June, 1978, or for the year 1977-78, the assessee filed its return before the ACCT inter alia disclosing sales turnover of GI pipes of Rs. 8,28,139.60 with which only we are concerned claiming total exemption from payment of sales tax on the same, on the ground that they were "declared goods" which had suffered tax at the hands of GST Ltd. and as a second dealer it was not liable to pay sales tax on the said sales turnover under the KST Act. On 26th November, 1980, the ACCT completed the assessment for the said period and allowed the said exemption claimed by the assessee.

4. On July 14/19, 1983, the Commissioner in exercise of the suo motu power of revision conferred on him by section 22A of the KST Act, issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to modify the aforesaid order of the ACCT and bring the exempted sales turnover of "GI pipes" to tax which was naturally opposed by the assessee in writing as also at the oral hearing afforded thereto under the. On 16th January, 1984, the Commissioner overruling the objections of the assessee has confirmed the show cause notice issued by him. Hence, this appeal by the assessee under section 24(1) of the KST Act before us.

5. Sri B. P. Gandhi, the learned Advocate, who appeared in support of the appeal before us addressed his elaborate arguments. Sriyuths K. Srinivasan, G. Sarangan and E. R. Indra Kumar, learned Advocates appearing for the various petitioners, one of whom is GST Ltd. also intervened and ably supported Sri Gandhi. Sri S. Rajendra Babu, learned Government Advocate appeared for the Commissioner-revenue. Both sides in their elaborate and exhaustive arguments extending for 3 days have relied on a large number of rulings and treatises in support of their respective cases and we will refer to them at the appropriate stages.

6. On the contentions urged before us, the following three points arise for our determination and they are :

(1) Whether GI pipes fall under entry 2(a)(xi) of the Fourth Schedule to the KST Act and section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act, viz., "steel tubes, both welded and seamless or all diameters and lengths, including tube fittings" or not

(2) Whether letter No. 24/3/73-ST (P.T.) dated 20th November, 1973, written by Government of India (published on page 754 of the Central Sales Tax Act by Chaturvedi) to treat GI pipes as steel tubes was a direction to the authorities under the KST Act and if so was it binding on the latter

(3) Whether there was a lawful direction by the Commissioner to treat "GI" pipes as "steel tubes" under section 3A of the KST Act or not If so, has it been withdrawn and from what date : Whether the same is enforceable by the assessee on the principle of promissory estoppel.

We now proceed to examine them in their order.

Re : Point No. 1.

7. Sri Gandhi has urged that GI pipes were "steel tubes" of entry 2(a)(xi) of the Fourth Schedule to the KST Act and section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act. Elaborating his contention Sri Gandhi maintained that galvanization was done on steel tubes as an anti-resistant and anti-corrosive measure and the same did not transform the same to a different commercial commodity to hold that they were not "steel tubes" and as unclassifiable goods to attract levy of sales tax on every point of sale under section 5(1) of the KST Act.

8. Sri Rajendra Babu, in supporting the order of the Commissioner, has urged that GI pipes which were not deliberately included in section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act reproduced as entry 2(a)(xi) of the Fourth Schedule to the KST Act, was commercially a different product and was not "declared goods" exhaustively enumerated in section 14 of the CST Act and, therefore, the same attracts multi-point levy as unclassifiable goods under section 5(1) of the KST Act.

9. In allowing the claim made by the assessee for exemption as second dealer of GI pipes the ACCT expressed thus :

"The assesses-firm have claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 8,28,139.60 on account of sales of second dealer in respect of tax-suffered machinery, gun powder, oil and electrical goods, etc. In support of their claim for exemption on this account, the assesses-firm have filed list of purchases from the registered dealers. These transactions of purchases are verified with reference to the invoices and form 32 declarations are found to have been stamped on the purchase invoices. The assesses-firm has also filed dealer wise purchases list. The invoices are examined with the list filed and found the same in order. In view of the fact that the assessee has become second dealer in these goods and that they have purchased from the registered dealers who have collected tax from this assessee, the claim for exemption by the assesses-firm on a turnover of Rs. 8,28,136.60 is in order. Therefore, the exemption is allowed. However, the lists have been sent for cross-verification to verify the correctness of otherwise of the exemptions claimed."

But, in revision, the Commissioner after noticing the substance of the contents of his notice, the written objections filed by the assessee and the arguments urged before him expressed thus :

"I have examined the contentions in detail. No doubt, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held in the case reported in [1973] 32 STC 322 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Durga Hardware Stores) that galvanization is nothing but coating the iron sheet with zinc to prevent it from oxidation and that it improves the utility of the raw material and at the same time the iron and steel do not lose their essential character. This decision has been followed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case reported in [1980] 45 STC 99 (Sales Tax Commissioner v. Jammu Iron and Steel Syndicate). But, the High Court of Madras in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli v. P. C. Mohammed Ibrahim Marakayar Sons [1980] 46 STC 22 [LQ/MadHC/1979/489] has dissented from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Durga Hardware Stores [1973] 32 STC 322. [LQ/APHC/1972/12] It has been held that galvanized plain sheets referred to as GP sheets or CR sheets would not fall within the category of "iron and steel" and that they are actually materials different from steel plates and their use is also different and commercially they are different goods. It has also been stated in the said judgment that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Durga Hardware Stores [1973] 32 STC 322 [LQ/APHC/1972/12] was rendered at a time when the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra : 1983(13)ELT1582(SC) had not been rendered. In view of this, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in [1973] 32 STC 322 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Durga Hardware Stores) is not helpful to this case. Similarly, the notification dated 20th November, 1973, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, was at a time when the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra : 1983(13)ELT1582(SC) had not been rendered.

6. For the reasons stated above, the contentions of the assesses respondent are not tenable. In view of the above discussion and also for the reasons already furnished in the notice, it is considered that GI pipes are not goods falling under entry 2(a)(xi) of the Fourth Schedule and that they are unclassified goods taxable under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ........."

On this conclusion, the Commissioner directed the ACCT as hereunder :

"The assessment order dated 26th November, 1980, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Belgaum, read (1) above is set aside only to the extent that it allows exemption on the sales turnover of GI pipes. The assessing authority is directed to pass fresh orders after determining the sales turnover of GI pipes and subjecting the same to tax under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957."

As an appellate authority under the, we are first required to examine the correctness of the reasons given by the Commissioner and then set out our own reasons either to accept them or to discard them and record our findings or conclusion on the points formulated by us. But, an examination of the reasons given by the Commissioner disclose that they are not full, exhaustive and are sketchy which itself justifies us to ignore them and examine the point afresh. Even otherwise, arguments by both sides before us covered a wide field which also justifies us to examine the point afresh without reference to the reasons given by the Commissioner. We, therefore, propose to examine this and other points accordingly.

10. The principles for interpreting entries found in the CST and KST Acts are now well-settled by a large number of rulings of the Supreme Court and it is enough to refer to two of them only.

11. In Dunlop India Limited v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 597 [LQ/SC/1975/396] , the Supreme Court dealing with a dutiable item or an entry found in the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944, reviewing all the earlier cases, English and American Courts, restated the principle in these words :

"31. It is well-established that in interpreting the meaning of words in a taxing statute, the acceptation of a particular word by the trade and its popular meaning should commend itself to the authority.

32. Dealing with the meaning of the term vegetables in the Excise Tax Act in King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited 1951 CLR 122 the Exchequer Court observed as follows :

Now the statute affects nearly everyone, the producer or manufacturer, the importer, wholesaler and retailer, and finally, the consumer who, in the last analysis, pays the tax. Parliament would not suppose in an Act of this character that manufacturers, producers, importers, consumers and others who would be affected by the, would be botanists. The object of the Excise Tax Act is to raise revenue, and for this purpose to class substances according to the general usage and known denominations of trade. In my view, therefore, it is not the botanists conception as to what constitutes a "fruit" or "vegetable" which must govern the interpretation to be placed on the words, but rather what would ordinarily in matters of commerce in Canada be included therein. Botanically, oranges and lemons are berries, but otherwise no one would consider them as such.

The Exchequer Court also referred to a pithy sentence from 200 Chests of Tea, per Story, J. (1984) 9 Wheaton (US) 435 that the legislature does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists, or geologists, or botanists.

33. The above Planters Nut case 1951 CLR 122 was referred to with approval by this Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer : [1962]1SCR279 . In Ramavatars case : [1962]1SCR279 , this court was concerned with the meaning of the word vegetables occurring in C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. This court held as follows :

But this word must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined in the and being a word of every day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning "that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it". It is to be construed as understood in common language.

34. Again in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh : [1967]2SCR720 this court had to deal with the word charcoal used in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It was contended in that case that charcoal would be covered under entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to that Act. This court, while holding that charcoal would be included in coal, observed as follows :

Now, there can be no dispute that while cola is technically understood as a mineral product, charcoal is manufactured by human agency from products like wood and other things. But, it is now well-settled that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense.

This Court again referred with approval to the decision in Planter Nut case 1951 CLR 122 and followed the principle laid down in Ramavatars case : [1962]1SCR279 . In South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India : 1973ECR9(SC) the question that was raised related to item 14-H in the Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which contained compressed, liquefied or solidified gases, inter alia, carbon acid (carbon dioxide). This court observed as follows :

It is also not correct to say that because the sugar manufacturer wants carbon dioxide for carbonation purpose and sets up a kiln for it that he produces carbon dioxide and not kiln gas. In fact what he produces is a mixture known both to trade and science as kiln gas, one of the constituents of which is, no doubt, carbon dioxide.

This court finally observed :

The kiln gas in question therefore is neither carbon dioxide nor compressed carbon dioxide known as such to the commercial community and therefore cannot attract item 14-H in the First Schedule.

Similarly in Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India : 1973ECR23(SC) this court dealing with the meaning of the word Wolfram ore again approvingly referred not to the scientific or technical meaning but to the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them in their commercial sense.

35. Mr. Sanghi draws our attention to several authorities to impress upon us that butadiene styrene lattices are compatible with many resins and modifiers. He also submits that the term vinyl pyridine has been used to include a variety of resins, plastics, elastomers, etc., and that V.P. latex exhibits outstanding adhesive properties. His main object is to show that V.P. latex is resin which is an omnibus term for a variety of hard brittle, solid or semi-solid organic substances. It is, however, seen from an extract from the Dictionary of Rubber Technology, 1969 edition, by Alexander S. Craig, produced by Mr. Sanghi that vinyl pyridine is one component of terpolymer of butadiene styrene and vinyl pyridine used in latex form to promote good adhesion between rubber and textiles, particularly rayon and nylon. We find the same description reiterated in a book Latex Natural and Synthetic by Cook (a Reinhold Pilot Book) where at page 145 it is stated that there is one type of speciality rubber latex that deserves special notice. This is terpolymer of butadiene, styrene, and 2-vinyl pyridine. Under the trade names of "Genetic" and "Pyratex" it is extensively used in nylon tire cord saturation because it gives better adhesion between the cord and the rubber in which the cord is imbedded that do other lattices. Mr. Sanghi, however, emphasises that V.P. latex is merely an adhesive and so is akin to resin and not to rubber.

36. We are, however, unable to accept the submission. It is clear that meanings given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course. But once an article is classified and put under a distinct entry, the basis of the classification is not open to question. Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance, we then see no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry."

In Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh : 1981(8)ELT325(SC) , the Supreme Court examining the meaning of an entry in the U.P. Sales Tax Act referring to some of the leading cases restated the principle in these words :

"4. It is well-settled that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment than it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola : [1962]1SCR279 , the question was whether betel leaves fell within the item vegetable so as to earn exemption from sales tax and this court held that word vegetable had not been defined in the, and that the same must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance and so construed it denoted those classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen garden and are used for the table and did not comprise betel leaves within it and, therefore, betel leaves were not exempt from taxation. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh : [1967]2SCR720 , the question was whether the item coal under entry 1 of Part III of the Second Schedule to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1958, included charcoal or not and this court observed thus :

Now, there can be no dispute that while coal is technically understood as a mineral product, charcoal is manufactured by human agency from products like wood and other things. But, it is now well-settled that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense.

Viewing the question from the above angle this Court further observed that both a merchant dealing in coal and a consumer wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its geological sense but in the sense as ordinarily understood and would include charcoal in the term coal and held that charcoal fell within the concerned entry No. 1 of Part III of Schedule II of the.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid well-settled test the question is whether clinical syringes could be regarded as glassware falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the It is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression glassware is articles made of glass (See Websters New World Dictionary). However, in commercial sense glassware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, and the like which have specialised significance and utility. In popular or commercial parlance a general merchant dealing in glassware does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles, though made of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely that a consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware shop. In popular sense when one talks of glassware such specialised articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like do not come up to ones mind. Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the clinical syringes which the assessee manufactures and sells cannot be considered as glassware falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule of the."

Bearing these principles, we must examine the question.

12. Steel tubes are galvanised is not in dispute. But, what is really in dispute is, whether galvanization transforms steel tubes into a different commercial commodity or not. While the assessee contends that it does not, the revenue contends to the contrary and to determine the same, we must first ascertain the meaning of the words "galvanization" or "galvanize" from which the former is derived.

13. The words "galvanization" and "galvanize" are defined in the following general dictionaries as hereunder :

"galvanization - the act or process of galvanizing; the application of an electric current to the human body for medical purposes.

galvanize - 1a. to subject to the action of an electric current, b. to arouse, stimulate, or excite as if by the application of an electric current; 2 : to coat (iron or steel) with zinc - compare Electro galvanize."

(vide : Websters Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, Vol. I, page 932)

"Galvanization - ........... 2. The state of being galvanized.

Galvanize - ........... 2. To cover with a coating of metal by means of galvanic electricity. Commonly but incorrectly applied to the coating of iron with zinc to protect it from rusting, though no galvanic process is ordinarily employed."

(vide : The Oxford English Dictionary, Volume IV, page 33)

"galvanize - to put a covering of metal esp. zinc, over (a sheet of another metal, esp. iron), by using electricity : galvanized iron - compare Electroplate 2. to shock (someone) into action : The fear of losing his life galvanized him (into fighting back)."

(vide : "Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English" by Chief Editor Paul Procter, page 467)

The term is defined in the Condensed Chemical Dictionary as hereunder :

"galvanizing : Coating of a ferrous metal by passing it through a bath of molten zinc or by electrode position of zinc. In the former process, the iron and zinc combine to form an inter-metallic compound at the interface the outer surface being relatively pure zinc, which crystallizes as it cools to form the characteristic spangle. The electrode position method gives a uniform surface which may be either dull or bright. Duration of corrosion protection is directly related to the thickness of the zinc coating. See also sacrificial protection."

The treatise "Nomenclature - Explanatory Notes", Second Edition (1966), published by Customs Co-operation Council considered to be authority on the subject explains the requirements of galvanization thus :

"Semi-manufactures and articles of iron or steel are commonly subjected to various treatments to improve the properties or appearance of the metal, protect it against rusting and corrosion, etc. Such treatments, which do not affect the heading in which the goods are classified, include :

(1) Annealing, tempering, case-hardening (by cementation) and similar bear-treatments or nitriding to improve the properties of the metal.

(2) Descaling, pickling, scraping or other processes to remove the oxidation scale and crust formed during the heating of the metal; rough coating to prevent rusting (e.g., with oil grease, tar or red lead).

(3) Finishing treatments (polishing, burnishing, glazing, artificial oxidation, phosphating, etc.). Metallization, for example : by cementation with zinc (sherardizing), or with aluminium, etc.; by electroplating (copper, chromium, nickel, cadmium, gold, silver-plating, etc.); by immersion in a bath of molten metal (e.g., zinc, tin or lead). Coating with no-metallic substances (enamelling, painting, lacquering, etc.); surface printing; etc. But, it is to be noted that insulated electric wire, cable, bars, etc., are excluded ......"

"Indian Standard Specification for Hot-Dip Zinc Coating on Steel Tubes" published in 1978 by Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi, neatly brings out the necessity for galvanization thus :

"0.2. The hot-dip galvanizing process is very widely used for obtaining protection against corrosion of a large variety of ferrous products. This standard has been formulated with a view to achieving efficient and economic protection of steel tube by a hot-dip galvanized coating of adequate and uniform thickness."

Para 4 of the same book sets out the basis metal for tubes as hereunder :

"4.1. Basis Metal for Tubes - Unless specified at the time of ordering tubes shall be manufactured from mild steel and shall satisfy the conditions laid down in the relevant standards for tubes. Some alloy steels and carbon steels other than mild steel may present special difficulties in galvanizing. In such cases, the standard will be applicable only after agreement between the galvanize and the purchaser."

Para 5.5 of the same book dealing with adhesion test explains the same thus :

"5.5. Adhesion Test - Galvanized tubes up to and including 50 mm nominal bore, when bent cold through 90 Degree round grooved former having radius at the bottom of the groove equal to 8 times its outside diameter, shall not develop any crack in the coating."

"The Indian Standard Specification for Mild Steel Tubes, Tubulars and other Wrought Steel Fittings" (Fourth Revision) published in 1979 describes black tubes and tubes thus :

"2.1. Black tube - Tube as manufactured but without any subsequent surface treatment.

2.7. Tube (pipe) - A long, hollow, open-ended object of circular or other cross-section. The term tube is synonymous with the term pipe."

On "Galvanizing" the same book expresses thus :

"12.1. Where tubes are required to be galvanized, the zinc coating on the tubes shall be in accordance with IS : 4736-1968.

12.1.1. Tubes which are are to be screwed shall be galvanized before screwing." What emerges from these meanings or elucidations that are apposite is, that galvanization with zinc is done on the very steel tubes of pipes only as a protective or as anti-corrosive or as anti-resistant only to enhance their lasting qualities and utility.

14. With the phenomenal progress in basic sciences, metallurgy and technology, galvanization which has come to stay, is undertaken as an anti-corrosive or anti-resistant measure. When there is galvanization on "steel tubes" they do not lose their character and utility and become a different, much less a different commercial commodity at all. For those that trade in them as also for those that use them, they are only steel tubes though they are popularly called as GI pipes.

15. When a person buys steel tubes for use in structural and various other uses he buys GI pipes only but meaning them as steel tubes. What is true of a purchaser and consumer is more true of a trader. When a trader sell "steel tubes" he really sells GI pipes but meaning them as steel tubes. In the common parlance of the trader, plumber, mason and the consumer, GI pipes really refer to steel tubes occurring in section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act and the corresponding entry in the KST Act.

16. Even if we are to attach greater importance to technical meanings and technical processes that undergo galvanization, which normally should be avoided by courts, it is clear that on galvanization steel tubes do not cease to be steel tubes or become entirely different, distinct and separate articles at any rate commercially with which aspect only we are primarily concerned.

17. On this analysis, we have no hesitation in holding that GI pipes are steel tubes occurring in section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act and the corresponding entry of the KST Act.

18. With this independent analysis and conclusion, we now pass on to examine as to how the authorities had understood the same, the other justifications urged for the revenue before us.

19. As noticed earlier section 14 of thewas amended by Central Act No. 61 of 1972 and that section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act does not contain galvanized and black tubes. But, evidently on an examination of that omission in this provision, the Directorate General of Technical Development, Government of India (DGT), which acts as the advisory department for Government of India in technical matters, in its letter dated 20th November, 1973, to which we will make a detailed reference when we examine point No. 2, had expressed that steel tubes include GI pipes. Evidently in conformity with this opinion of the DGT on independently the Commissioner in a letter written by him to one of the dealers though not the very assessee and on more than one occasion in a publication called "Commercial Tax Bulletin" published by Government had expressed the same view. We need hardly say that this accords with what we have earlier independently expressed.

20. Sri Rajendra Babu is undoubtedly right in contending that section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act does not use "galvanized" tubes and that term had been employed in section 14(iv)(vi) and (xv) of that Act. Section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act for some inexplicable reason or by inadvertent omission does not employ the words "galvanized" and "black tubes" which had been used in the other parts of that section. We are of the view that this omission by itself cannot be decisive to hold that the legislature had deliberately excluded galvanized and black tubes from the purview of section 14(iv)(xi) which has been bodily lifted and enacted as entry No. 2(a)(xi) of the KST Act. On the application of the progressive rule of construction of statutes enunciated by Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam : [1981]131ITR597(SC) reiterated in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Gotla ILR (1985) Kar 3749 we are of the view that notwithstanding the omission of those terms, steel tubes include GI pipes and the latter cannot be excluded from the former merely on the ground that galvanization had been undertaken to the former.

21. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra : 1983(13)ELT1582(SC) on which great reliance was placed for the revenue, the Supreme Court was examining the correctness of the decision of the Madras High Court in holding that steel rounds, flats, angles, plates and bars manufactured from out of "iron and steel" were not subject to tax under section 14 of the CST Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Central Act No. 61 of 1972. In reversing the decision of the Madras High Court the Supreme Court primarily examined that provision and incidentally referred to the amended provision without, however, examining and deciding the precise question that arises before us. We are, therefore, of the view that Pyare Lal Malhotras case : 1983(13)ELT1582(SC) is not an authority for the proposition urged for the revenue and does not assist it.

22. In Sales Tax Commissioner v. Jammu Iron and Steel Syndicate [1980] 45 STC 99 [LQ/JKHC/1979/10] a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has taken a similar view as we have taken on the precise question. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by their Lordships of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Jammu Iron and Steel Syndicates case [1980] 45 STC 99. [LQ/JKHC/1979/10]

23. In Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli v. P. C. Mohammed Ibrahim Marakayar Sons [1980] 46 STC 22 [LQ/MadHC/1979/489] , a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealing with a case of assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act of 1959 prior to the amendment of the CST Act by Act No. 61 of 1972 has expressed that galvanized sheets or plates were not iron plates. We are of the view that the ratio in this case is distinguishable on the very reasons on which we have distinguished Pyare Lal Malhotras case : 1983(13)ELT1582(SC) . Assuming that the ratio in this case cannot be distinguished then, with great respect to their Lordships of the Madras High Court, we are constrained to observed that the principles stated are very wide and are not in accord with what we have expressed earlier and we regret our inability to subscribe to their views.

24. We are happy to find that the sales tax authorities of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Punjab, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Kerala administering enactments similar to KST and CST Act have taken a similar view as the one expressed by us on which basis they have completed the assessments against GST Ltd.

25. On the foregoing discussion, we hold that "steel tubes" include galvanised and black tubes and they fall within section 14(iv)(xi) of the CST Act and entry No. 2(a)(xi) of the KST Act. From this it follows that the exemption granted by the ACCT on the ground that the turnover of GI pipes had suffered tax and was not exigible to tax at the hands of the appellant as second dealer was correct and legal and there were no grounds for the Commissioner to interfere with the same.

26. On the view we have expressed on point No. 1 the appellant is entitled to succeed in its appeal without examining and deciding the other two points formulated by us. But, as both sides have addressed their full arguments on those points and they are likely to arise now and then before this Court, we consider it proper to record our findings on those points also. We, therefore, now proceed to examine the other two points in their order.

Re : Point No. 2.

27. Sri Srinivasan has urged that letter No. 24/3/73-S.T. (P.T.) dated 20th November, 1973, addressed by Government of India (GOI) to all the State Governments was a direction binding on the authorities functioning under the KST Act.

28. Sri Rajendra Babu has urged that the letter dated 20th November, 1973, of GOI was not a direction and, in any event, was not a binding direction on the authorities functioning under the KST Act.

29. Accepting the recommendations of the DGT, GOI on 20th November, 1973, had informed its officer and all the State Governments that GI pipes were steel tubes. That letter reads thus :

"No. 24/3/73-S.T. (P.T.)

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 20-11-1973.

To

The Finance/Revenue Secretaries of all States/Union Territories.

Subject : Scope of the definition of the term Iron and Steel as given in section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972.

Sir,

I am directed to say that for some time past several trade organisations and State Governments have been making enquiries as to whether certain items would fall within the scope of the term Iron and steel as defined in section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972]. The matter was examined in consultation with the Directorate General of Technical Development who have advised as under :

(a) cast iron castings manufactured after melting cast iron and cast iron scrap, may not fit in the nomenclature Pig iron and cast iron including ingot moulds, bottom plates, iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap used in item (i) of section 14(iv) of the.

(b) G.I. Pipes : Black pipe, black and galvanized pipes and tubes would fall within the scope of item (xi) of section 14(iv), viz., steel tubes, both welded and seamless of all diameters and lengths including tube fittings. Pipe fittings, tube fittings such as bends, elbows, tees and reducers would also fall within the aforesaid item (xi). However, manipulated/fabricated tubes/pipes and tubeless structurals are items which are fabricated from pipes and tubes. As such it is doubtful whether these fabricated items would fall within the scope of the said item (xi).

2. The above advice of the Directorate General of Technical Development may kindly be brought to the notice of the Sales Tax Authorities in the State for their guidance.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- O. P. Mehra, Under Secretary to Government of India."

Whatever may be the source of power, with which aspect it is not necessary to dilate at this stage, it is difficult to hold that it is a direction of GOI to the State Governments and the authorities administering the KST Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the said letter is not a direction to the authorities administering the KST Act.

30. The CST Act in general and section 9 in particular of that Act does not empower GOI to issue directions to the authorities functioning under the local sales tax laws of the country. If that is so, then the same cannot be construed as a direction under the CST Act, much less a binding direction, thereunder. We are also of the view that the same cannot also be construed as an administrative direction issued by GOI under article 256 of the Constitution. If that is so, the question of implicit compliance with the same either by Government of Karnataka or the authorities under the KST Act does not arise. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this contention of Sri Srinivasan.

Re : Point No. 3.

31. Sri Gandhi has urged that the Commissioner, exercising the powers conferred by section 3A of the KST Act, had issued directions to his subordinates to treat GI pipes as "steel tubes" which was binding on him and his subordinates and the same should be enforced on the principle of promissory estoppel.

32. Sri Rajendra Babu has urged that the directions issued were not lawful directions traceable to section 3A of the KST Act to invoke the principles of promissory estoppel.

33. In one of the earliest letters written to one of the assessees though not the very appellant, the Commissioner had stated that GI pipes were steel tubes and were exigible to sales tax at the first sale point and a second dealer was not exigible to taxes under the KST Act. On more than one occasion the Commissioner had restated the same in an official publication called "Commercial Tax Bulletin".

34. Whether GI pipes are steel tubes or not was not and is not free from doubt. If that was so, it was open to the Commissioner to examine that question as a general question and issue directions to his subordinates. We are, therefore, of the view that the directions issued by the Commissioner under section 3A of the KST Act were lawful directions.

35. When the court finds that the directions issued were lawful directions, they were undoubtedly binding on the Commissioner and his subordinates. If they were lawful directions, the Commissioner and his subordinates are bound by the same and invoking the principle of promissory estoppel elaborately discussed and explained by the Supreme Court in Motilal Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh : [1979]118ITR326(SC) restated in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited : [1986]158ITR574(SC) , the appellant is entitled to seek for its enforcement.

36. On 7th May, 1979, the Commissioner has issued a general circular, inter alia, stating that all his earlier circulars stand abrogated and the authorities have to decide each case on its own merits. Sriyuths Srinivasan and Sarangan have urged that the Commissioner was not competent to do so; in any event he could not issue such an omnibus direction without really applying his mind.

37. The power to issue a direction comprehends in itself the power to withdraw the same. In that view, it was open to the Commissioner to withdraw all the earlier directions issued by him and direct his subordinates to decide each matter on its own merits. We are not concerned with the soundness and aptness of the decision taken by the Commissioner for withdrawing all his earlier directions and circulars issued by him. In S. N. Gondakar v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore [1983] 54 STC 190 [LQ/KarHC/1983/138] a Division Bench of this Court has recognised that such withdrawal made by the Commissioner was valid. We are bound by the decision. Even otherwise, we do not see any justification to hold that the same requires reconsideration. For these reasons we see no merit in this contention of Sriyuths Srinivasan and Sarangan and we reject the same.

38. On the findings recorded by us on points Nos. 1 and 3 the appellant is entitled to succeed in its appeal.

39. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order No. SMR 20/83-84 dated 16th January, 1984, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore, and restore the order of the ACCT. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.