JUDGMENT VIJAYVARGIYA, J. - By this reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter to as the Act), the following questions of law have been referred by the Board of Revenue for the opinion of this Court : "(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued to the assessee in form XVI was proper, having stated the reasons which prompted the reopening of the case, and the case could be reopened under section 19(1) of the Act ? (2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment under section 19(1) amounted to a change of opinion by the assessing authority and for that reason the reassessment was valid and proper under section 19(1) of the Act ? (3) Whether sale of batteries made separately without being attached to motor vehicles and made separately from them was covered by the M.P. Government, Separate Revenue Department Notification No. 1126-936-V-ST-68 dated 20th March, 1968 ?" 2. The facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of case are as follows : The assessee, Laxmi Motors, is a dealer in motor batteries and has been assessed to sales tax for the financial year 1968-69. The gross turnover in the case included the turnover in respect of sale of batteries amounting to Rs. 6,58.032 which was initially assessed to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. Since the rate of tax on battered was 11 per cent. with effect from 1st September, 1967, the case was reopened under section 19(1) of the Act and after giving notice to the dealer and considering his reply additional tax was assessed at the rate of 1 per cent. against the assessee. The assessee objected to the reassessment on the ground that the notice did not reveal any reason for reopening of the assessment. The contention was negatived by the assessing officer who observed that the notice clearly mentioned that batteries worth Rs. 6,58,032.84 were assessed at the rate of 10 per cent instead of 11 per cent as per entry 1-A of Part II of Schedule II to the Act and therefore the assessment was at a lower rate. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of reassessment. 6,58,032.84 were assessed at the rate of 10 per cent instead of 11 per cent as per entry 1-A of Part II of Schedule II to the Act and therefore the assessment was at a lower rate. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of reassessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner negatived the contention of the assessee that the notice issued in form XVI did not give any reason for reopening the assessment and that batteries sold by part. It is well-settled that if a commodity is covered by a specific entry and it also can be included within the purview of a general entry the commodity has to be assessed under the specific entry. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that as the turnover relating to batteries was assessed at a lower rate the assessing authority was justified in reassessing the same under section 19(1) of the Act and that battries were assessable under entry 1-A of Part II of Schedule II to the Act and was not covered by the M.P. Government notification relied upon by the assessee. 6. As a result of the discussion aforesaid our answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative and against the assessee. Our answer to question No. (2) is that the reopening of the assessment was not invalid and improper under section 19(1) of the Act on the ground that reopening of the assessment amounted to change of opinion by the assessing authority; and our answer to question No. (3) is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.