JUDGMENT M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. - The short question which falls for determination in this appeal is, whether the appellant's purchase of certain steel shutter lathes (claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant as the common parlance usage of certain components used in the manufacture of rolling shutters and the like) fall specifically under entry 2(a)(v) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and as such are liable to tax at the point of the first sale or, whether such steel shutter lathes fall outside entry 2(a) and, therefore, are liable to tax under section 5(1) of the Act on its purchase or sale and brought to tax on the turnover. 2. For the assessment year 1977-78 (Deepavali year), the assessing authority refused to accept the contention of the assessee that he was entitled to exemption as the items purchased by him, namely, steel shutter lathes, fell within the ambit of entry 2(a)(v) and was liable to tax at the first sale point in the State and he being a second purchaser, his sale was not liable for tax. Therefore, he brought to tax the turnover relating to such purchases. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore City Division, Bangalore, in A.P. No. 126/80-81. The appellant succeeded before the appellate authority and got exemption in respect of the sales as they were considered to be second sales of commodities falling under entry 2(a)(v). However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, respondent herein, in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Act, after notice to the appellant, found fault with the appellate order granting exemption, set aside the same and restored the original assessment order of the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Mr. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Mr. B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant, has presented in this Court a number of documents including a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated December 10, 1987 by which it has been clarified by the Commissioner in terms of entry 2(a) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act that cold rolled sections purchased from a registered dealer liable to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and sold as it is would be exempt from tax irrespective of the use to which it is put. Undoubtedly, it has been the case of the appellant before all the authorities that the steel shutter lathes he purchases are used in the manufacture of rolling shutters by him and he purchased the same from the manufacturers and used it in the same condition without subjecting it to any other process. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that the department itself has clarified though later that shutter lathes fell into the category of steel items would be entitled to exemption in terms of the clarification. Therefore, there was no justification for the same Commissioner in the earlier assessment year to subject it to the rigour of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction finding fault with the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). We have also independently examined whether the items which have been exhibited before us would fall into any one of the 16 sub-entries under entry 2(a) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. rom it physical appearance and the admitted use to which it is put which is not in dispute, we must accept, the case of the appellant that it should fall into one of the several entries under entry 2(a) of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. Therefore, if the purchase and use of it is not disputed by the department, then it is liable to be exempted as it is not subjected to tax at the point of second sale. Therefore, the Commissioner was in error in restoring the order of the assessing authority by setting aside the order of the appellate authority who had come to the correct conclusion. Therefore, the Commissioner was in error in restoring the order of the assessing authority by setting aside the order of the appellate authority who had come to the correct conclusion. It is only when a particular transaction of sale or purchase that is not covered by the specific charging section under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of section 5, the question of attracting the overall charging section 5(1) will arise. If it really falls under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of section 5, then the exemption to which such transaction is entitled to in terms of the Act should be extended to the dealer and in respect of his turnover. Therefore, the purchase of the steel shutter lathes could not have been brought to tax under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act on the general trade and business activity of the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal recording the fact that in the earlier years it was accepted by the department that it did not attract tax under section 5 of the Act as also in the years subsequent to the assessment year with which we are concerned in this appeal. The order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is set aside and that of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) is restored. 4. Any tax paid pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which is now set aside, shall be refunded to the appellant. If the appellant makes an application for refund, the same shall be disposed of and refund shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of such an application. Order accordingly. Petition allowed.