Om Prakash, C.J. 1. The short question for consideration in this revision case is : whether the product viz., Glucovita/Glucose-D is liable to tax as classified item under entry at serial No. 127 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which runs as under :
"Non-alcoholic drinks, squashes, sauces, aerated waters and beverages bottled or canned.
Explanation:--Powders, tablets and concentrates used for the preparations of non-alcoholic drinks shall, whether or not they arc bottled or canned, be liable to tax under this entry."
2. It is not disputed that the product with which we are concerned in this case is in the form of powder. Very often the powder mixed with water is given to the children. It is a supplemental energy food to them. It is a non-alcoholic drink. In our opinion, the Glucovita/Glucose-D is clearly covered by the Explanation to the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule.
3. Our conclusion is also fortified by the subsequent amendment made in the First Schedule, in which entry at serial No. 87 specifically includes Glucose-D/Glucovita and similar items with effect from April 1, 1992. Serial No. 87 is as under :
"Non-alcoholic drinks, squashes, sauces, aerated waters, mineral water, beverages, Horlicks, Boost, Bournvita, Complan, Glucose-D, Glucovita and similar items whether bottled, canned or packed.
Explanation :--Powders, tablets and concentrates used for the preparation of non-alcoholic drinks, shall whether or not they are bottled or canned be liable to tax under this entry".
The amended entry at serial No. 87, including Glucose-D/ Glucovita clearly shows that even before the amendment, the product in question was in the nature of the items, mentioned in the entry at serial No. 127, which is nothing but analogous to the new entry at serial No. 87. The amendment made with effect from April 1, 1992 is only clarificatory in nature, so far as Glucose-D/Glucovita is concerned. If Glucose-D/Glucovita were not in the nature of other products, specified in the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule and if Glucose-D/Glucovita were absolutely of heterogeneous character vis-a-vis the other products, then the Legislature would not have included the product of heterogeneous character into the entry at serial No. 87 even after the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the case of the revision-petitioner observing as under :
"........These items can be read into the "entry" only if we stretch the meaning of terms contained in the entries or strain the language employed therein. The fact that Glucose-D and Glucotiva were included in the First Schedule under entry 87 with effect from April 1, 1992 also affirms the position that they were not included in the First Schedule prior to April 1, 1992. The basic principles of interpretation applicable to taxing statutes also do not permit us to stretch the meaning of terms contained in the entry (of First Schedule) so as to include Glucose-D and Glucovita in the First Schedule."
4. In our view, the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal is wholly erroneous. The question for consideration is as to why the Legislature has put Glucose-D and Glucovita in juxtaposition to the other products as mentioned in the entry at serial No. 87 which telescoped into the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule. The reason is not far to seek. The Legislature has included Glucose-D and Glucovita in the entry at serial No. 87 analogous to the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended Schedule because in essence Glucose-D and Glucovita arc not different but of the nature of other products, as mentioned in the entry at serial No. 127.
For these reasons, the T.R.C. is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal .in this behalf is quashed. It is declared that Glucose-D and Glucovita will be assessed as classified items falling under the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule.