Judgment :- Discordant voices in relation to the tax liability imposable on some musical equipment have led to this original petition. 2. The petitioner, M/ s. Tharangini records, carries on the business of recording music in blank cassettes and selling the recorded cassettes. 3. Music, of course, is no mere mechanical feat. Shakespeare referred to it as 'food of love'. Any entirety of sweetness is the oriental concept. Its inspirational origin and artistic frame are too transparent. Scientific discoveries have facilitated transmission of the voice through various equipments; and its preservation for endless years. 4. The petitioner was assessed for the periods 1981-82 and 1982-83. According to the petitioner, the rate of tax was excessive and erroneous. Appeals were filed. The appellate authority who heard the cases, and the long arguments, as is referred to in that order, thought it better not to trouble him self with the mental exercises necessary for an exhaustive examination of the legal contentions. It was easy to make a remand. That he did under Ext.P4 order. 5. The fight in the assessing arena continued. Added might was furnished by additional objections raised. They were, however, of no avail, when the assessing authority passed an assessment, scuttling the entire contentions by a single sentence reading: "Though what is sold by the dealers is pre-recorded cassette, it can still be used for fresh recording of sound in it and hence, the contention that this is a general item cannot be accepted". 6. The assessee approached, again, the appellate authority for relief. The appeals for the two years, as against the assessments made both under the Central Sales Tax Act and Kerala General Sales Tax Act, are evidenced by Exts. PS, P10, P13 and P14. It would have been the obvious obligation of the appellate authority to. Look into the contentions and render a reasoned decision. The appeals were disposed of by Exts. P11 and P12 order, adversely to the petitioner. 7. Another event intervened in the meanwhile. On 28-7-1986, the Government issued a clarification, Ext .P15, invoking S.59A of the KGST Act. It has referred to G.O. (P) 102/86/TD and published in the gazette dated 28-7-1986. Look into the contentions and render a reasoned decision. The appeals were disposed of by Exts. P11 and P12 order, adversely to the petitioner. 7. Another event intervened in the meanwhile. On 28-7-1986, the Government issued a clarification, Ext .P15, invoking S.59A of the KGST Act. It has referred to G.O. (P) 102/86/TD and published in the gazette dated 28-7-1986. The operative portion of the clarification reads: "Having examined the matter in detail Government by virtue of the powers conferred under S.59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 hereby clarify that record players and cassettes will come under entry 155 of the 1st schedule to the said Act liable to sales tax at 15% at the point 6f first sale within the State". In as much' as the Government has issued a clarification as in the above terms, one cannot ordinarily expect from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner a view contrary to the one contained in the clarification. 8. The petitioner therefore approached this Court to quash Ext. P15 and for a declaration that the cassettes are not liable to be assessed under Entry 155 of the KGST Act as it stood during the relevant time. 9. The writ petition merits examination only in relation to this general question and having regard to the rigid stand now taken on behalf of the State and its functionaries. 10. Some basic scientific events and inventions may be briefly referred to, to understand the vexed tax problem involved in the case. 11. There was a time when administrators were not enthusiastically involved or interested in scientific innovations. Edison had one such experience when he attempted to demonstrate his new invention to an audience, which included A Member of Parliament. Edison replied to his query that there will be a time when the products of electricity would be of much concern for the State. Later events demonstrated the prophetic message. Electric and electronic goods changed the very pattern of life. The manufacture, sale and distribution, and even their use and utility had been subjected to legal controls. Large chunks of revenue were contributed by the excise duty, Value Added Tax, sales tax and the like by those products. 12. Even while dealing with legal questions in the familiar field of Evidence Act, the electronic gadgets and their utility had been noted by courts of law. Large chunks of revenue were contributed by the excise duty, Value Added Tax, sales tax and the like by those products. 12. Even while dealing with legal questions in the familiar field of Evidence Act, the electronic gadgets and their utility had been noted by courts of law. Our own Supreme Court dealt with the question whether a tape-recorded conversation was admissible in evidence. A well known case where a tape recorded conversation was admitted in evidence in Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72. Tape record is primary and direct evidence and therefore admissible - was the view reiterated in fl. Sri Rama Reddy v. V. V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 399. Other decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with the evidentiary aspect of it are: R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157 and Z.B Bukhari v. B.R. Mehra, AIR 1975 SC 1888. The English and American courts also have treated tape records of conversation, as evidence, (vide R v. MagsudAH, (1965) 2 All E.R.464 and Nixon v. Richey, 168 U.S. App. 169). A special law was brought by American congress - Presidential Records and Materials Preservation Act, Public Law 93-526 in the wake of the "Watergate". The constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court of America in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425. Yet another decision of that court dealing with the commercial exploitation of the Presidential tapes in Richard Nixon v. Warner Communications, INC. 435 U.S.589 = 55LEd2d570. Tapes have been discussed in the context of the Law of Evidence by Cross on Evidence, 5th Edn. Pages 13-14. Two other decisions touching that aspect are The Statute of Liberty case, (1968) 2 All ER195 and R. v. Robson & Harris, (1972) E.R.699. 13. Technical literature regarding tapes is now available a plenty. Video Tape Recorders by Barry Kybett, 2nd Edn. is one such handy book. Some of these aspects had been discussed in the reference order in Silvester v. R. Balakrishna Filial & Others, O.P.Nos. 5055 & 4125 of 1986. Some recent decisions which had occasion to go into the legal mechanics as also the scientific details of television and the accessories are available in Sony Corp. is one such handy book. Some of these aspects had been discussed in the reference order in Silvester v. R. Balakrishna Filial & Others, O.P.Nos. 5055 & 4125 of 1986. Some recent decisions which had occasion to go into the legal mechanics as also the scientific details of television and the accessories are available in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S.417 = 78 L Ed 2d 574, Herald-Sun T.V. Proprietary Limited v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, (1984-85) 156 Commonwealth Law Reports 1, Commercial Radio Cofs Harbour Limited v. Fuller and another, (1986) 161 C.L.R.47 and R v. General Medical Council, exp Co/man, (1990) 1 All E.R.489. Words and phrases in the vocabulary of television and video tape recorders are available from the discussion in the American. Case - such as about 'betamax Video Tape Recorders (V.T.R.), 'the practice of time-shifting', and the like. 14. India has almost caught up with the developed countries as regards the use of electronic media. Millions now are moved to their cosy corners at home to watch the televised programmes. These are, however, only recent developments. Even advanced countries had extensive use of them only after 1960s. 15. As to how the State Legislature viewed these developments and adapted their strategies in relation to the taxing operation may now be considered. 16. It is not necessary to trace all the sales tax laws and the Entry regarding gramophone in the schedules there under. It is sufficient if we start from the time the Travancore-Cochin State was formed. 17. It will be seen that even in 1949, there was an entry "Radio Gramophones" as covered by S.3 (2) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The tax burden was somewhat Light; only three paise in the rupee. Radio gramophones and component parts of radio gramophones came under Entry 8 when the Act stood amended by Act 21 of 1958. The 1963 enactment also contained the entry relating to 'gramophones' the component parts there of and records under Entry 10 of the First Schedule. In other words, the Legislature had noticed the gramophones and the gramophone records and the tax-yielding source there under, even prior to the amendment of the Act in 1980. 18. Even on a plain understanding, it win be difficult to include "tape cassettes" within the Entry "gramophone records". In other words, the Legislature had noticed the gramophones and the gramophone records and the tax-yielding source there under, even prior to the amendment of the Act in 1980. 18. Even on a plain understanding, it win be difficult to include "tape cassettes" within the Entry "gramophone records". For one thing, the gramophone records, as is known from scientific history, were available long before I960 at about the time when cassettes and tapes become popular, E 19. In as much as the Governmental exercise of power under S.59A, evident from Ext.P15 was somewhat strange, the court directed the production of the relevant files. 20. It would appear that, initially the question which was considered by the Government, was whether cassettes would come under sound recording and reproducing equipment. That was considered in the background of Entry 152 of the First Schedule, reading: "152. Cinematographic equipments, including cameras, projectors and sound recording and reproducing equipments, lenses, films and parts and accessories required for use therewith." The opinion indicated the reasons: "The word "include" is ordinarily used in order to enlarge the meaning of words and phrases occurring in the body of the statutes and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. It gives an extended statutory meaning to the word defined which is in addition to its ordinary popular and natural sense. If this meaning is accepted for purposes of classifying the present entry there is nothing wrong in finding that the Record Players and Cassettes are sound recording and reproducing equipments falling under entry 152 of the 1st Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act Of may also be noted that some times the word "include" is used by the Legislature not to extend the meaning of a word but to give an exhaustive meaning of the word by way of clarification (1977) 40S.T.C.57). If this view is to be followed it can be safely held that sound recording and reproducing equipments used exclusively for the purpose of cinematographic equipments alone will fall under this entry. In other words, record players and cassettes if they are not used or are not intended to be used in connection with use of the cinematographic equipment they will not fall under entry 152. In other words, record players and cassettes if they are not used or are not intended to be used in connection with use of the cinematographic equipment they will not fall under entry 152. It is the well settled law that the taxation laws should be interpreted to the advantage of the assessee." 21. The view that was accepted by the Government on the basis of an advice tendered by the Law Department was communicated by the Government to the Board of Revenue. However, the Board of Revenue expressed its dissent. The gist of the letter was that cassettes can be brought under "Gramophone and Component parts there of and records" as detailed in Entry 155. A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Shyam & Co. v. Commr. of Sales Tax, (1980) 45 S.T.C. 167 was relied on to support that stand. The Government was requested to issue a clarification to that effect. 22. The Government again sought advice from the Law Department of the Government. The Law Department gave its opinion in these terms: "In view of the judgment reported in 1980 STC 45 this department may agree with the suggestion of the Board of Revenue at 'X' on page 39 c.f. Joint Secretary, Dated 16-6-86." It is unfortunate that the Law Department gave its views in a casual and careless manner. 23. The Board of Revenue, which relied on Shyam & Co. v. Commr. Of Sales Tax, (1980) 45 STC 167 also does not appear to have carefully looked into the facts of, the case or the reasoning. The decision in (1980) 45 STC 167 supra, assumed that record players, and records fall within the category of the entry 'Gramophones and component parts thereof and records'. This assumption is of no avail in the determination of a complex tax question. That aspect of the matter should have occurred to the board, which has a tradition of expertise in such matters. The Board should have addressed itself to the history of the legislation and the scientific information in relation to the articles. The ill-informed and incorrect view of the Board was approved by the Government without adequate independent scrutiny. The resultant order Ext.P15 is consequently unsustainable. 24. The Board should have addressed itself to the history of the legislation and the scientific information in relation to the articles. The ill-informed and incorrect view of the Board was approved by the Government without adequate independent scrutiny. The resultant order Ext.P15 is consequently unsustainable. 24. The question does not have much relevance for later years, in view of the amendment effected by the Finance Act of 1987, effective from 1-7-1987, when' tapes and cassettes for electronic equipments' have been brought within the purview of Entry 191. 25. It will then follow that the item will have to be taxed only as an unclassified item. The writ petiikm is accordingly allowed as indicated above. I do not make any order as to costs, though the assessee had been subjected to sufficient harassment.