KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS Sales Tax Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 8. 06. 1990, passed by Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the said Tribunal allowed the appeal of the non- petitioner and set-aside the orders passed by C. T. O. (Anti Evasion) dated 24. 4. 1989, and of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, dated 17. 1. 1990 and held that De-oiled cake is exempt from payment of tax as the same falls in Entry No. 9 of the Schedule read with Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE short question in this revision is as to whether de-oiled cake is taxable under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act? The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bafna argued that by virtue of Notification dated 8. 3. 1988, issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 5 of the Act, Sales Tax has been levied on de oiled cake at the rate of 2 1/2%. He argued that under these circumstances the non-petitioner is liable to pay tax on de- oiled cake at the rate of 2 1/2% from 8. 3. 1988. On the other hand, counsel for the non-petitioner argued that Section 4 of the Act provides that no tax shall be payable under the said Act on the (sale or purchase) of any of the exempted goods if the conditions specified in column 3 of the Schedule are satisfied. He drew my attention to Entry No. 9 of the Schedule, which reads as under: - SCHEDULE No Tax shall be payable on the (sale or purchase) or the following goods:- S. No. Depscription of goods Conditions and exceptions subject to which exemption is allowed. 9. Cattle, feeds, excluding gower. cotton-seeds and oil cakes He argued that in this entry all types of cattle feeds are exempted from payment of tax except gower, cotton seeds and oil cakes. He argued that de-oiled cake is different commercial commodity from oil cakes. Thus he argued that de-oiled cake has not been excluded from the definition of cattle feed. He argued that de-oiled cake is included in Entry No. 9 of the Schedule and is exempted from the payment of tax. He further argued that the Notification issued by the Government is inconsistent with Section 4 (1) read with Entry No. 9 of the Schedule and as such the notification will not apply but the Act will apply and as such even if the Government has issued the Notification that can not supersede the provisions of the Act. In support of his arguments counsel for the non-petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Mahavir Industries Vs. B. O. R. (l ). I agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. No question of law is involved in this revision. Consequently the same is dismissed. (6) Both the parties shall bear their own costs. .;