JUDGMENT DR. A. S. ANAND, C.J. - Whether "gas stove" sold by the assessee fell under entry 123 of the First Schedule at the relevant time and were taxable at 8 per cent single point as found by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision or were subject to tax at 4 per cent multipoint as claimed by the assessee is the only question requiring our consideration. The assessee had purchased single and double gas stoves from Bombay and sold them to the extent of Rs. 33,580. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer subjected this turnover of Rs. 33,580 to assessment at 8 per cent under entry 123 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called "the Act". On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, accepted the plea of the assessee that the goods would not fall under item 123 of the First Schedule and were taxable only at multi-point at 4 per cent. The Joint Commissioner, however, proposed to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and after issuing notice to the assessee and inviting objections, had considered the same and ultimately set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision under section 34 of the Act and restored the assessment as made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee is in appeal before us. Mr. Inbarajan, learned counsel for the assessee - appellant submitted that the Joint Commissioner had misread entry 123 of the First Schedule as gas stoves are not included in that entry and articles which are "gas stoves" cannot be treated as gas ovens which are included in entry 123 of the First Schedule. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had correctly appreciated the nature of the goods and, therefore, the order of the Joint Commissioner was unsustainable. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had correctly appreciated the nature of the goods and, therefore, the order of the Joint Commissioner was unsustainable. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. At the relevant time entry 123 read as follows : "Pressure cookers, pressure stoves, gas ovens and parts and accessories thereof - At the point of first sale in the State 7 per cent effective from March 4, 1974, 8 per cent effective from August 15, 1974." By amending Act 17 of 1987, with effect from April 1, 1987, entry 123 reads as follows : "Pressure cookers other than those falling under item 41-B, pressure stoves, gas stoves, gas ovens and parts and accessories of all such goods." It would thus be seen that gas stoves have been specifically included in entry 123 in addition to gas ovens and pressure stoves with effect from April 1, 1987 by amending Act 17 of 1987. The amending Act is clearly declaratory in nature and for the first time it included in entry 123 of First Schedule with effect from April 1, 1987 gas stoves to be exigible to tax at single point under that entry. In Associated Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Joint Commissioner - II, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras [T.C. (A) No. 811 of 1982] decided on August 13, 1991 ([1993] 89 STC 447 (Mad)) a Bench of this Court has held that subsequent legislation can, indeed be looked into for unearthing the legislative intention behind the existing legislation and where an item is included in an entry for the first time by amending Act and that entry is expanded to include an added commodity in addition to the commodities available in the existing entry, it would be reasonable to hold that it was not the intention of the Legislature to employ the expanded entry for considering the original entry. The expressions used in the entry 123, both as it originally existed and after its amendment, are commercially and popularly understood and it is fairly well-settled that the words and expressions must be construed in the manner in which they are understood in the trade. The expressions used in the entry 123, both as it originally existed and after its amendment, are commercially and popularly understood and it is fairly well-settled that the words and expressions must be construed in the manner in which they are understood in the trade. Considered thus, we are of the view that gas stoves which admittedly are the articles sold by the assessee were brought in for single point taxation at 8 per cent under entry 123 of First Schedule only with effect from April 1, 1987 and prior to that since gas stoves were conspicuous by their absence in entry 123 of First Schedule, they were only exigible to tax at multi-point at 4 per cent. The Joint Commissioner, therefore, fell in error in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For what we have discussed above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.