A. N. VARMA, J. - (1.) The question which falls for determination in this case is whether laminated high density polyethylene fabric (hereinafter referred to as "hdpe fabrics') is synthetic waterproof fabric within the meaning of clause (vi) of the annexure to the Notification No. ST-11-3714/x-6 (1)-85 U. P. Act - 15-48-Order-85 dated June 5, 1985, so as to be exempt from sales tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The contention of the petitioner is that laminated HDPE fabric is a synthetic waterproof fabric and, therefore, entitled to exemption. The case of the department, on the other hand is that HDPE fabrics - whether laminated or unlaminated, having been specifically excluded from exemptions granted under the aforesaid notification, the petitioner could not claim exemption under clause (vi ). In order to appreciate the controversy it will be convenient to have the relevant provisions of the notification before us. The notification dated June 5, 1985, provides : " In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. 15 of 1948) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make with effect from June 6, 1985, the following amendments in Government Notification No. ST-2-7-7038/x-71 (23)-8-U. P. Act XV-48-Order-85 dated January 31, 1985 : In the Schedule to the aforesaid notification (1) for the existing entries in column 2 against serial numbers 7, 10, 43 and 53, the following entries shall respectively be substituted, namely :- 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53. Textiles of the following varieties manufactured on powerloom, excluding durries, carpets, druggets, hosiery goods, ready-made garments, hessian or jute cloth and cotton, rayon or nylon tyre cord fabrics, tyre cord or, Drone cord warp sheets, PVC, HDPE fabrics and cotton beltings, but including the goods specified in the annexure hereunder : (i) - (v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi) Rubberised or synthetic waterproof fabrics, whether single textured or double textured. " Prior to this notification there was another notification dated January 31, 1985, in operation which was in so far as HDPE fabrics and synthetic waterproof fabrics are concerned, were substantially the same. It is hence unnecessary to set it out in extenso here. The position obtaining before the above notifications were issued was that under a notification issued by the State Government under clause (a) of section 4 of U. P. Sales Tax Act, rayon, or artificial silk fabrics, including staple fibre fabrics of all varieties were exempt from sales tax. Reference to this notification is necessary as interpretation of the term "artificial silk fabrics" shall have some relevance in resolving the controversy. The term was subject of judicial pronouncements which we will advert to a little later. Having set out the relevant statutory provisions, we proceed to examine the question arising in this case. The facts are not in dispute. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Kuldip Singh, the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 1, Muzaffarnagar, the activity in which the petitioner is engaged has been elaborated. It is said that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and runs a factory for manufacturing HDPE fabrics (both laminated as well as unlaminated ). The unlaminated HDPE fabrics is also known as plain HDPE fabrics. After manufacturing plain HDPE fabrics they are sent to other factories situate at Nodia, district Ghaziabad or to Delhi for process which is called lamination. The process called lamination of HDPE fabrics has been the subject of examination in various decisions. In the case of Plastipack Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1982] 49 STC 75 (All.), his Lordship R. M. Sahai, J. (as he then was) relying on various texts and dictionaries observed : " As pointed out earlier it is admitted that in the process of manufacturing, lamination is involved which comprises of impregnation of plastic material pressed together. " In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Kuldip Singh also it is stated that after lamination HDPE fabrics become waterproof. It, therefore, stands admitted to the respondent that HDPE fabrics, when subjected to the process of lamination, results in a substance which is waterproof. In the decision rendered by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, in Second Appeal No. 2 of 1983 [polypack (India) Ltd. , v. Commissioner of Sales Tax] it was held vide annexure 1 to the petition-relying on various dictionaries that HDPE fabrics are man-made fabrics and that they are made on wovenlooms known in common parlance as artificial synthetic fabrics. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kanpur Plastic Pack (P.) Ltd reported in [1984] 57 STC 188 (All.); 1984 UPTC 641, his Lordship N. D. Ojha, J. (as he then was) also had an occasion to examine the precise nature of HDPE fabrics and observed that simply because HDPE fabrics are not made of yarn but are made of tapes, the plain HDPE fabrics would not be taken out of the purview of artificial silk fabric. This decision has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1988 UPTC 109 (Polyraf Engineers v. State of Uttar Pradesh ). In the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Lid. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1980] 46 STC 256; AIR 1980 SC 1552, their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the concept of fabric as used in Sales Tax Acts in considerable depth. His Lordship R. S. Pathak, J. (as he then was), speaking for the court, gave to the term "fabric" the widest possible meaning and held that fabric as a term should cover all textiles, no matter how manufactured or the nature of the material from which made. Again, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Polyweb Private Ltd. [1982] 51 STC 364, while considering the question whether HDPE woven fabrics are artificial silk fabrics within the contemplation of Item No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, their Lordships of the Madras High Court observed : " The question is whether it can be regarded as artificial silk. It would appear that polyethylene is a synthetic resin falling under the category of thermoplastic in the same way as nylon or polythene or synthetic plastic resin. In this country, high density polyethylene is imported in granule form. The granules are passed through several processes and stretched into fibres of varying thickness. They are subsequently woven into cloth on looms. The nature of the substance and the manner in which it is made into a fibre to be used as such in the manufacture of fabrics shows that high density polyethylene must be brought under the genus 'artificial silk'. " It will thus be seen that there is ample authority to support the contention of the petitioner that plain HDPE fabrics is a synthetic fabric. And it is further conceded by the respondents that plain HDPE fabrics when subjected to the process of lamination become waterproof. That being so, the article in question squarely falls within clause (vi) of the annexure to the above notification dated June 5, 1985. Clause (vi) specifically exempts synthetic waterproof fabrics from levy of sales tax. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that mere lamination would not take the HDPE fabrics being manufactured by the petitioner from out of the purview of the exception specifically made under entry 53, i. e. , being HDPE fabrics it cannot claim exemption from sales tax in view of entry 53 which excepts various items of textiles from the benefit of exemption granted under the notification dated June 5, 1985. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that even after lamination the basic character or texture of the item continues to he HDPE fabrics. We regret the submission of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. It is true that the notification specifically excepts certain items of textiles from the benefit of exemption. These items have been mentioned in entry 53 (quoted above ). Among the items excepted HDPE fabrics also find place. But within this exception another area has been carved out consisting of items specified in the annexure to the notification which were intended to continue to receive the benefit of exemption. Even if therefore in its broadest sense, laminated HDPE fabrics would also be HDPE fabrics but if it falls within one or the other of the items mentioned in the annexure it would not be liable to tax, i. e. , the exception carved out under entry 53 would not affect the immunity of such items from taxation. The same result is reached by another process of reasoning. If the item in question falls under one or the other clauses mentioned in the annexure, it will become entitled to exemption from sales tax irrespective of whether the species might fall within the excepted genus specified under item 53. If the article is specifically exempted from sales tax under notification under consideration it becomes entitled to exemption and to that extent the rigor of exception mentioned in entry 53 stands whittled down. In interpreting fiscal statutes there is a well-accepted principle, viz. , that where a provision is capable of two constructions, one that favours the subject ought to be preferred to the other. The principle is well rooted in authority and needs no further elaboration beyond a reference to [1973] 89 ITR 236 (SC); AIR 1973 SC 2524 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd.), [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 1734 [commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd] and [1968] 68 ITR 252 (SC); AIR 1968 SC 623 (Income-tax Officer v. Devinatha Nadar ). The upshot is that laminated HDPE fabrics fall under clause (vi) of the annexure to the notification dated June 5, 1985 being synthetic waterproof fabrics and is, on that account, entitled to exemption from sales tax. The learned Standing Counsel, in the end, submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available to him by way of an appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal against the orders of assessment and that, therefore, this Court ought not to exercise its discretionary powers under article 226 of the Constitution. A complete answer to this submission is furnished by a passage occurring in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. reported in [1977] 39 STC 355 (SC); 1977 UPTC 289. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, his Lordship Fazal Ali, J. , speaking for the court, said : " Lastly, it was feebly argued by Mr. Manchanda that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and should have allowed the assessee to avail of the remedies provided to him under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, particularly when questions of fact had to be determined. In the instant case, the question as to what is the true connotation of the words 'sanitary fittings' and whether the hume pipes manufactured and sold by the respondent were sanitary fittings within the meaning of that expression was a question of law and since the entire material on the basis of which this question could be determined was placed before the Sales Tax Officer and it pointed in one and only one direction, namely, that the hume pipes were not sanitary fittings and there was nothing to show otherwise, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition. Moreover, there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition where an alternative remedy is available to a party. It is always a matter of discretion with the court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is the settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. " In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are restrained from realising any tax from the petitioner on the laminated HDPE fabrics under the Notification No. ST-11-3714/x-6 (1)-85 U. P. Act - 15-48-Order-85, dated June, 5, 1985. If any assessments have been made against the petitioner, treating the laminated HDPE fabrics manufactured by the petitioner as liable to tax, the same shall stand quashed and the tax, if realised from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him within 3 months of the date on which a certified copy of this judgment and order is filed before the appropriate authority. As the petition has been disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, there will he no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. .;