JUDGMENT : M.C. AGARWAL, J. 1. These are cross petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 9th February, 1989 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow on an appeal filed by the Petitioner in writ petition No. 442 of 1989, M/s. Jain Marble Home, against an order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on a petition moved by it u/s 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. I have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal learned Counsel for the dealer and Sri R. D. Gupta, learned standing counsel for the State. 3. The dealer M/s. Jain Marble Home is a registered dealer under the Act. Its case as that it carried on the business of purchase and sale of all kinds of stone in all shapes and sizes which are used for construction and furnishing of the buildings. It has been realising tax at the rate of 6 per cent on the sale of all such stone and has been regularly depositing the same with the sales tax department. The Petitioner moved an application u/s 35 of the Act before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow for deciding the question regarding the rate of tax on the marble stone and marble pieces, etc. By an order dated 14.7.1988, the Commissioner held that the marble slab and marble pieces are unclassified goods taxable at the rate of 8 per cent. He further held that stone, other than marble stone which are sold after cutting it into different pieces, is taxable at the rate of 6 per cent under Notification No. 5785 dated 7.9.1981 and polished tiles shall be taxable at the rate of 12 per cent. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, the dealer filed an appeal u/s 10 before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and held that the marble slabs and pieces of marble would be taxable at the rate of 6 per cent under Notification No. 5785 dated 7.9.1981. It further held that pieces of marble which are known as marble tiles are taxable at the rate of 12 per cent. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the dealer has filed writ petition No. 442 of 1989. It further held that pieces of marble which are known as marble tiles are taxable at the rate of 12 per cent. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the dealer has filed writ petition No. 442 of 1989. Its contention is that marble is a kind of stone and broken pieces of marble, marble slabs and marble tiles are all covered under entry No. 40 of the Notification No. 5785 dated 7.9.1981 which refers to stone and articles of stone except of glazed stone for which the rate of tax prescribed is 6 per cent. 4. The Commissioner, in his writ petition, challenges the Tribunal's order in so far as it states that marble slabs and marble pieces other than tiles are covered by the entry No. 40 aforesaid and are taxable at the rate of 6 per cent. According to the Commissioner, marble is not stone and, therefore, the marble slabs and marble pieces are not covered in the category of stone and articles of stone. 5. Learned standing counsel raised a preliminary point that a writ petition against the order of the Tribunal is not maintainable. This is a self-defeating argument because the State itself has filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order. However, this controversy has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Super Cotton Bowl Refilling Works 1989 UPTC 489, wherein it has been held that a revision u/s 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 does not lie to the High Court from a decision of the Commissioner u/s 35 which has been subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that correction by the High Court is not eliminated and in an appropriate case by an exercise of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court can exercise its power of superintendence and correct the errors. Therefore, I hold that the writ petitions in question is maintainable. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that correction by the High Court is not eliminated and in an appropriate case by an exercise of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court can exercise its power of superintendence and correct the errors. Therefore, I hold that the writ petitions in question is maintainable. 6. u/s 3A of the Act, the State Government has the authority to prescribe rates of tax and the point of taxation in respect of various types of goods mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereof, Clause (d) refers to goods which are specified in the Schedule to the Act and Clause (e) is a residuary clause which covers goods that are not within the ambit of Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d). The Schedule to the Act mentions a large type of goods in 76 entries. Entry No. 67 relates to "tiles of all kinds other than earthen roofing tiles". 7. On 7th September 1981, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued two Notification Nos. 5784 and 5785. Notification No. 5784 is in exercise of powers u/s 3A(1)(d) of the Act, i.e., it is in respect of the goods mentioned in the various entries of the Schedule. Entry No. 67 of this notification corresponds to the above entry in the Schedule and prescribes a rate of 12 per cent on the turnover of "tiles of all kinds other than earthen roofing tiles" and the tax is leviable on the manufacturer or the importer. Notification No. 5785 was issued in exercise of powers u/s 3A(1)(e), i.e., in respect of the goods that were not covered by other Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) of Section 3A of the Act. Entry No. 40 of this notification is in respect of "Ramraj, Geru, Surkhi, Sand, lime, bajri, marble chips, moram, gltti, kankar, stone ballast, stone and articles of stone except of glazed stones". The rate of tax prescribed is 6 per cent on sale to consumer. 8. For determining the controversy between the parties, the first point to be considered is whether marble is not a stone as contended on behalf of the State. Learned standing counsel could not cite any material in support of his contention except a letter dated 14th September, 1982 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh to the Assistant Commissioners and Sales Tax Officers. Learned standing counsel could not cite any material in support of his contention except a letter dated 14th September, 1982 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh to the Assistant Commissioners and Sales Tax Officers. This letter states that in respect of taxability of the goods, the Government, after consultation with the law department, has informed that marble cannot be treated as stone or glazed stone. This letter, therefore, merely contains the opinion of the Government and does have the legislative force. It. therefore, does not provide any support to the case of the State that marble is not stone in Encyclopaedia Americana, marble is described as a "general name for many varieties of rocks used in architecture and statuary in the strict sense, marble is a metamorphic rock derived from lime stone.... Marble is a choice architectural stone not only for its beauty and the ease with which it can be sculptured." in Encyclopaedia Britannica, marble has been described as "massive granular metamorphic rocks derived from limestones...commercially, the term includes all decorative calcareous rocks that can be polished" in Chamber's Encyclopaedia, Volume IX, it is stated "marble a rock term used in two senses, popular and scientific. In the building trade, marble denotes any soft rock, usually limestones of different degrees of purity that can be polished for use as a decorative stone. Examples of such 'marbles' are the black, red, grey or variegated limestones from Devon-- Marbles are often patterned in colour and texture by flowage, veining or brecciation and such stones are cut into then slabs and used in groups for interior decoration". The above description clearly show that marble is nothing but various varieties of stones that are described as marble. The contention on behalf of the State that marble is Just marble and not stone is, therefore, unacceptable and is hereby rejected. 9. The Sales Tax Tribunal has held that marble slabs and marble pieces are stones and articles of stone covered by entry No. 40 of Notification No. 5785. in view of the above discussions, this part of the Tribunals' order is correct and the writ petition filed by the State has no force. 10. Now we are left with the question of taxability of marble tiles. They too are made of stone and come within the category of articles of stone as mentioned in entry No. 40 referred to above. 10. Now we are left with the question of taxability of marble tiles. They too are made of stone and come within the category of articles of stone as mentioned in entry No. 40 referred to above. But tiles of all kinds other than earthen roofing tiles are covered by entry No. 67 of the Schedule to the Act and the entry of the same number in Notification No. 5784. The controversy between the parties is which notification is applicable to marble tiles. 11. A tile can be manufactured out of several type of materials and can be either flat or curved. It can be square, rectangular or in any other shape. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, tile is a flat or curved piece of fired clay, stone, concrete, or other material used especially, for roofs, floors or walls and often for such work of an ornamental nature. They can even be made of things like cork, linoleum or rubber. 12. The dealer deals in. amongst others, pieces of marble that are called tiles. Learned Counsel for the dealer-Petitioner placed reliance on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hamidullah and sons 1973 UPTC 518 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. R.P. Bansal and Company 1983 STC 110 , in which it was held that marble chips are marble goods. At that time there was a specific entry relating to marble goods and it was held that marble chips came in the category of marble goods. Relying on these authorities, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that likewise marble tiles are articles of stone falling within entry No. 40 of Notification No. 5785. Admittedly, the dealer deals in tiles of stone and, therefore, they fall under entry No. 67 of Notification No. 5784 which deals with tiles of all kinds as well as under entry No. 40 of the other notification which covers stone and articles of stone. The question is which notification would be applicable for taxing the turnover of marble tiles. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Shakti Lace Factory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1982 UPTC 814, in which it was held that where there are two notifications, one granting exemption and the other levying tax, then the notification which grants exemption should be applied. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Shakti Lace Factory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1982 UPTC 814, in which it was held that where there are two notifications, one granting exemption and the other levying tax, then the notification which grants exemption should be applied. He, therefore, contended that the subsequent Notification No. 5785 should apply to marble tiles and treating them as articles of stone, the turnover should be taxed at the rate of 6 per cent. 14. Interpretation of statutes is not a mechanical and literal exercise. One has to look to the attending circumstances and find out the real intention and the purpose of the law. Inconsistency and repugnancy should be avoided. It is the duty of the courts to avoid "a head on clash" between two sections of the same Act and effect should be given to both by adopting a harmonious construction. A construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead letter" is not harmonious construction. If a special provision is made on a certain matter that matter is excluded from the general provision. The principle is expressed in the maxims generalia specialibus non derogant and generalibus specialia derogant. 15. In an attempt to find out the effect of the two notifications referred to above, one has to keep in mind the provisions of Section 3A of the Act. It has placed goods in five categories in Clauses (a) to (e). Clause (a) deals with declared goods; Clause (b) deals with turnover of food and drink served in hotels and restaurant, Clause (c) deals with turnover of spirits; spirituous liquors and alcohol; Clause (d) then deals with goods mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. Then comes Clause (e) which covers goods not specified in any of the aforementioned categories. The Schedule to the Act contains entry No. 67 dealing with tiles of all kinds other than earthen roofing tiles. Therefore, tiles whether made of stone or rubber or of any other material would be covered by entry No. 67 of the Schedule and thereby excluded from the purview of the residuary Clause (e). The Schedule to the Act contains entry No. 67 dealing with tiles of all kinds other than earthen roofing tiles. Therefore, tiles whether made of stone or rubber or of any other material would be covered by entry No. 67 of the Schedule and thereby excluded from the purview of the residuary Clause (e). Notification No. 5784 was issued u/s 3A(1)(d) of the Act, i.e., in respect of the goods mentioned in the Schedule and entry No. 67 of the notification refers to the corresponding entry in the Schedule and prescribes rate of 12 per cent at the point of manufacture or import. Therefore, in respect of tiles of all kinds other than earthen roofing tiles, no notification under Clause (e) of Section 3A (1) could be issued. Notification No. 5785 has been issued in exercise of powers u/s 3A(1)(e) and is, therefore, only in respect of goods that come in the residuary clause and are not covered by Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) aforesaid. Therefore, when entry No. 40 of Notification No. 5785 mentions stone and articles of stone. It has to be read to exclude articles that come within any of the aforesaid categories. As pointed out above, tiles of all kinds are covered by Clause (d) having been specifically mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. Therefore, they stand excluded from the scopes of Clause (e) and consequently, stone and articles of stone cannot include stone tiles for purposes of determination of the rate and point of tax. I am, therefore, of the opinion that turnover of marble tiles was taxable to sales tax in terms of entry No. 67 of Notification No. 5784 at the rate of 12 per cent and not at the rate of 6 per cent as prescribed in the other notification in respect of stone and articles of stone. 16. For the above reasons, the Tribunal's order is in accordance with law and requires no interference. 17. In view of the above discussions, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.