JUDGMENT KANAKARAJ, J. - The petitioners are dealers in beds and pillows. They had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,41,205.14 and Rs. 2,86,275.16 respectively under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1978-79. Similarly, for the assessment year 1977-78 the petitioners had reported a total turnover of Rs. 4,79,569.47 and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,21,736.12. We are concerned in these petitions with the application of two notifications granting concession in the rate of tax in respect of the goods involved in these cases. The assessing authority found that the petitioners are not eligible for the concession. On appeal, the decision of the assessing authority was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Even in the second appeal filed before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners were unable to convince the Tribunal that they are eligible for the concessional rates granted by the notification. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the notifications and seeks to argue that one or other of the clauses of the notifications will come to the aid of the assessees. Earlier in the year 1959, the exemption related to "sales of ready-made garments and handwoven quilt beds and pillows". In the year 1962, by notification dated November 30, 1962, the reduction in the rate of tax was made available in respect of "sales of ready-made goods made of cloth". By an amendment, introduced by G.O. No. 1328, Revenue, dated March 30, 1963, the words "and handwoven quilt beds and pillows" were added to the second mentioned notification. Incidentally, the second mentioned notification dated November 30, 1962, was in supersession of the first notification made on March 28, 1959. The Tribunal dealt with the question whether the goods, namely, quilts of beds and pillows would come within the first part of the notification namely, "ready-made goods made of cloth" and alternatively whether they would come within the second part of the notification "handwoven quilt beds and pillows". On the first question whether the goods can be characterised as "ready-made goods made of cloth", the Tribunal rendered a finding that the beds and pillows manufactured by the assessees were not exclusively made of cloth and they involved cotton contents to a major part. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the goods in question cannot be called as goods made of cloth. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the goods in question cannot be called as goods made of cloth. In other words, the Tribunal took the view that the notification meant to exempt only the goods made exclusively of cloth. On the second question, the Tribunal had no difficulty in holding that the quilt beds and pillows were not handwoven so as to attract the concessional rate provided in the notification. The Tribunal has rendered a factual finding that the assessees manufactured beds and pillows using cloth, both by hand-stitching and machine-stitching. Machine-stitching is done before the stuffing of the cotton waste or silk cotton and hand-stitching is done after the stuffing of the cotton. In understanding the notification dated November 30, 1962, we have to take note of the subsequent amendment by inclusion of the words "handwoven quilt beds and pillows". A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the import of such amendments. In Associated Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Joint Commissioner II, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras [T.C. (Appeal) No. 811 of 1982 ([1993] 89 STC 447 (Mad.))] a Division Bench of this Court had taken the view 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 said judgment was followed by the same Division Bench in V.A.M., Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore (North) [T.C. (Appeal) No. 967 of 1982 decided on August 20, 1991 ([1999] 116 STC 303 (Mad.) supra)]. In that case at the relevant time, the entry 123 in the First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act did not include "gas stoves". Only by Amending Act 17 of 1987 that the entry was amended to include "gas stoves". In that case at the relevant time, the entry 123 in the First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act did not include "gas stoves". Only by Amending Act 17 of 1987 that the entry was amended to include "gas stoves". Following the ratio laid down in the earlier judgment, the Division Bench held that the gas stoves which were the subject-matter of that case 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 gas stoves were conspicuous by their absence in entry 123. Accordingly, the Division Bench held that the gas stoves were exigible to tax only at multi-point rate. If we apply the reasoning of the said two judgments, we cannot ignore the fact that the intention of the Government was to exempt the goods with relation to handwoven quilt beds and pillows, only with effect from the date of the amendment, namely, March 30, 1963. The amendment being declaratory, the assessees cannot avail of the exemption notification unless they are able to establish that the goods involved in the cases related to quilt beds and pillows, handwoven and not machine-made. On the question whether the goods can come within the purview of the words "ready-made goods made of cloth", we agree with the Tribunal that the notification intended only to exempt goods made primarily of cloth. In this case the finding is that the major part of the quilt beds and pillows comprised of cotton. We are, therefore, unable to find fault with the reasoning of the Tribunal denying the concessional rate granted by the exemption notifications. Consequently, the tax revision cases fail and are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.