I. M. QUDDUSI, J. ( 1 ) SINCE common question of law regarding taxability on molasses under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is involved in these revisions, they have been heard together and are being decided with one common judgment. ( 2 ) ALL these revisions have been filed by D. S. M. Group of Industries and others under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter as "the Act") against the order dated October 26, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, in Second Appeal Nos. 282 of 1999, 283 of 1999 and 284 of 1999 of the revisionists filed against the ex parte provisional assessment order for the months of December, 1998, January, 1999 and February, 1999. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the revisionists while submitting their return under Rule 41 had not shown the turnover of molasses as taxable under the Act but the Assessing Officer had passed ex parte provisional assessment orders dated February 26, 1999, March 10, 1999 and march 30, 1999 for the months of December, 1998, January, 1999 and February, 1999 imposing levy on molasses in pursuance of the notification dated November 23, 1998 issued under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had also affirmed the aforesaid assessment orders passed in the aforesaid second appeals and the Tribunal while deciding the second appeals also took the same view holding that since the molasses is a manufactured goods, the same is liable for payment of tax. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Asseem Chandra appearing for the revisionists; and Sri Rakesh Bajpai and Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties. ( 5 ) SRI Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the U. P. Sheera Niyantran adhiniyam, 1964 which is a special enactment for molasses, will prevail over the general law, namely, the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, He further submitted that Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1964, provides as under : "the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay the State Government, in the manner prescribed, administrative charges at such rate, not exceeding five rupees per quintal as the State government from time to time notify, on the molasses sold or supplied. " ( 6 ) THE learned Senior Advocate also invited attention of this Court towards the notification dated December 4, 1985 issued by the State of U. P. under the aforesaid section which reads as under : "in exercise of powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran adhiniyam, 1964, the Governor is pleased to notify that with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay administrative charges to the State Government at the rate of Rs. 2. 50 (rupees two and fifty paise) per quintal of molasses of any category sold by the occupier of the sugar factory. " The administrative charges are on the sale of molasses. ( 7 ) THE learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the charges imposed above vide notification dated December 4, 1985 are tax in terms of definition of "taxation" under Article 466 (28) of the Constitution and which reads as under : " taxation includes the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special, and tax shall be construed accordingly. " ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on a decision of the honourable supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kisan Sahakari Chinni Mills ltd. appeals (including revisionist appeal) decided on August 21, 2001, [2002] 125 STC 432 (SC) in which it was held that the administrative charges leviable under subsection (4) of Section 8 in the event of sale or supply of molasses, are tax, as defined under Article 466 (28) of the constitution. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel also referred to entry No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the constitution in support of his contention, which is as under : "entry 54 of List II.--Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92-A of List I. Entry 92-A of List I.--Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. " ( 10 ) THESE administrative charges are tax on sale or purchase of molasses and are covered by these entries and U. P. Trade Tax Act also comes under these entries and operates in the same field. ( 11 ) THE learned Standing Counsel had promised to file written submissions but it appears that he could not file the same due to his business. He argued on the basis of what has been narrated in the short counter-affidavit. He has submitted that the molasses is covered by notification of the state Government dated September 7, 1981, and that the molasses is taxable under that notification at the rate 12 per cent on the event of manufacture or import. He has further submitted that the revisionist has not obeyed the provisions of Rule 52 of the U. P. Trade Tax rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and has not deposited the admitted tax along with monthly reports despite the demand created against them resulting which the goods belonging to the revisionists were attached and were placed for auction but due to the interim order passed by this Court on February 10, 2000 directing the revisionists to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 10 days and further that in case the amount is deposited, the auction shall not take place and the authority was directed to pass the final orders within 15 days. The goods belonging to the revisionists were not auctioned, hence they were released and final assessment order for the year 1998-99 was passed on February 24, 2000 and served upon the revisionists on February 26, 2000 and hence, the revisions are liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) THE first of all, the provisions of Section 13 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 are liable to be perused which are reproduced as under : "no sale or purchase tax under any other Uttar Pradesh Act shall be payable in respect of any transaction of sale or purchase of sugarcane in respect of which a tax is payable under this Act, anything contained in the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 to the contrary notwithstanding. " ( 13 ) IN view of the above provisions, the provisions of U. P. Trade Tax Act would not be applicable where U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 applies. " ( 13 ) IN view of the above provisions, the provisions of U. P. Trade Tax Act would not be applicable where U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 applies. Hence U. P. Trade Tax Act would not apply to the sugarcane and no tax either on sale or purchase of sugarcane is leviable under the said Act. In this regard the case law laid down by the honourable Apex Court in gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1999] 115 STC 358; 2000 UPTC 1 is also to be taken into consideration in the instant matter where the honourable Apex Court has held as under : "while determining the question whether a statute is a general or a special one, focus must be on the principal subject-matter coupled with particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act. Keeping in mind this basic principles, we will have to examine the provisions of the two Acts to find out whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the provisions of Section 4 of the Finance Act and Section 49 of the Sugarcane Act. If it is not possible then an effort will have to be made to ascertain whether the Legislature had intended to accord the levy on sugarcane a special treatment vis-a-vis the levy of purchase tax on other items, and a further endeavor will have to be made to find out whether Section 49 of the Sugarcane Act excludes the applicability of the levy under Section 4 of the Finance Act. On a perusal of the provisions of the above Acts including the objects of the two Acts, it could be seen that the two enactments in question contemplate levy of purchase tax. While the Finance Act empowers the State to levy all commercial taxes generally, the Sugarcane Act empowers the levy of purchase tax only on sugarcane. In this background, there can be no doubt that the Legislature intended to enact a special enactment for the purpose of levy of purchase tax with reference to sugarcane under the sugarcane Act to the exclusion of such levy under the Finance Act. Once we come to the conclusion that this is the intention of the legislation then the rule general provision should yield to special provision is squarely attracted. Once we come to the conclusion that this is the intention of the legislation then the rule general provision should yield to special provision is squarely attracted. " ( 14 ) THIS Court also cannot overlook the provisions of U. P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 which has been enacted for molasses only whereas the U. P. Trade Tax Act, applies to all commodities but as the special Act has been enacted for a particular purpose, i. e. , for the purpose of molasses the provisions of U. P. Trade Tax Act which are applicable in general, cannot prevail over the specific law enforced for the molasses. ( 15 ) IN view of what has been discussed above, the revisions are liable to be allowed. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the revisions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated October 26, 1999 passed by the U. P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, as contained in annexure 1 to the revisions, is set aside and the consequences will follow. No order as to costs. .