CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19-12-86 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in Karnataka, bangalore. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the order are as follows :- The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1981 82 showing a turnover of Rs. 3,42,304/- comprised in the sale of lime and charcoal. He claimed exemption in respect of sale turnover relating to charcoal in a sum of rs. 12,500/ -. As to the Trading Account reflected from his books of account, the return came to be accepted and the exemption claimed also came to be allowed. But the Assessing Authority treated the sale of lime as saleof chemical fallingunder entry-79 of the II Schedule to the karnataka Sales Tax Act ('act' for short) instead of taxing the same under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in accordance with the clarification issued by the commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in karnataka, on the query of the Belgaum chambers of Commerce and Industries in his letter dated 20 9-1984. Aggrieved by the conclusion of assessment and the consequent demand at the rate prescribed by entry-79 of the II Schedule to the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate Authority after examining the assessment records and the material such as the invoices produced by the assessee came to the conclusion that what the assessee had sold was 'lime morter' in brass (in mould squares said to be a unit of measurement in Belgaum area) and the sales being in favour of builders came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the clarification issued by the Commissioner as aforesaid under section 3-A of the Act. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on going through the records and the finding that the appellate Authority's order was prejudicial to the revenue inasmuch as lower rate of tax at 4% and 5% as against 8% and 10% chargeable under entry-79, issued a notice calling upon it to show cause why the appellate Authority's order should not be set-aside and the original assessment order be restored. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's case more or less was identical to the case presented before the Appellate Authority. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's case more or less was identical to the case presented before the Appellate Authority. The Commissioner, however, came to the conclusion that he was not bound by the Circular dated 20-9-1984 and sale of morter lime to builders was sale of chemicals attracting higher rate prescribed under entry-79 and on that basis, set-aside the appellate order. ( 4 ) IN the light of the above facts,what fall for our consideration are, (1) whether there was any error in the order of the Appellate Authority ; (2) whether any prejudice was caused to the revenue by the appellate order. ( 5 ) WE have already noticed that the Appellate Authority after examining the records and after considering the claim of the benefit of clarification issued by the Commissioner under Section 3-A of the Act concluded that the sale of 'lime morter' though a chemical within the meaning of the expression under entry-79, in view of the clarification, when sold to the builders would attract only the tax under section 5 (1), i. e. , at the prescribed rate in that sub-section itself at 4% or 5% depending on the period in the relevant assessment year. ( 6 ) SECTION 3-A of the Act is asfollows :- "3-A. Instructions to subordinate authorities ;- (1) The State Government and the commissioner may from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to all officers and persons employed in the execution of this Act as they may deem fit for the administration of this act, and all such officers and persons shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the State government and the Commissioner ; provided that no such orders, instructions, or directions shall be issued so as to interfere with the discretion of any appellate Authority in the exercise of its appellate functions. (2) Wi'hout prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the commissioner may, on his own motion or on an application by a registered dealer liable to pay tax under the Act, if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the way of assessments and collection of revenue, clarify the rate of tax payable under this Act in respect of goods liable to tax under the Act, and all officers and persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such clarification. Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by proof of payment of such fee, aid in such manner, as may be prescribed. 3. All officers and persons employed in the execution of this Act, shall observe and follow such administrative instructions as may be issued to him for his guidance by the Deputy Commissioner within whose jurisdiction he performs his functions. " the effect of the clarification issued thereunder in terms thereof has fallen for consideration by this Court in the case of sri Gondakar v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, and another, (54 STC 190) a Division bench of this Court considering the effect held that in terms of the provision, the clarification bind all officers who were entrusted with the administration of the act including the assessee who might have sought such clarification as to the rate of tax payable. It was in the light of that decision and the binding nature of the clarification, the Appellate Authority gave the benefit of the lower rate of turnover tax under Section 5 (1) as clarified by the commissioner in the clarification. He was bound to do so as he was a subordinate officer to the Commissioner and also an Officer administering the Act and he could not disregard the Circular. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, the Commissioner was in error in considering that the officer, the Appellate Authority, had committed an error in implementing his own clarification. It is doubtful whether the Commissioner himself can claim to be above the clarification he had issued, because the language of Section 3-A is such that though he is not a subordinate officer to the Commissioner, he is bound by the Circular as an officer who is required to administer the Act. It is doubtful whether the Commissioner himself can claim to be above the clarification he had issued, because the language of Section 3-A is such that though he is not a subordinate officer to the Commissioner, he is bound by the Circular as an officer who is required to administer the Act. The Commissioner is the Principal Officer under the act to administer the Act. Therefore, he must also feel bound by his own clarification. ( 8 ) NO doubt when the return waspresanted by the assessee, he disclosed his turnover as relating to sale of 'lime', but it does not appear to have been contended before the Assessing Authority that he had sold 'lime morter' i. e. , mixture of sand, coal ash and lime mixed in water used for the purpose of building walls or plastering walls. It is not necessary for us in the facts and circumstances of the case to decide whether the 'lime morter' also is a chemical. It suffices for us to proceed on the basis that the clarification was issued in regard to the sale of lime in favour of a builder or a building contractor the turnover tax should be in accordance with Section 5 (1) of the Act. Therefore, whether lime was sold or lime morter was sold, as long as the sale was in favour of the builder, it should be in accordance with the clarification. The exigibility to tax was only at 4% or 5% and not 8% or 10% under entry-79 of the iind Schedule. Therefore, no prejudice had been caused in the light of the clarification to the revenue. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter the Commercial Tax Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 22 A of the Act. We therefore must interfere with the order which is not in accordance with law. ( 10 ) WE quash the said order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as one without jurisdiction and restore the appellate order. Appeal is allowed in terms above. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .