ORDER Tirath Singh Thakur, J.—The short question that falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the sale of what the Petitioner describes to be 'Gobar Gas Plants' is exempt from payment of sales tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. While the Petitioner argues that it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Gobar gas plants, hence entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under Section 8 read with Entry 51 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act aforementioned, the Respondent has brought the Petitioner's sales to tax treating the same to be turnover from the execution of works contract taxable under Entry 43 of the Fifth Schedule. The controversy arises in the following circumstances: The Petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of Gobar gas plants besides parts and accessories thereof. Such plants are, according to the Petitioner, installed at the sites identified by the customers and the concerned Zilla Panchayats. They provide cheaper fuel and are more popular in the rural areas. That being so, the State has with a view to encouraging the manufacture and the use of such plants exempted the sale thereof from the payment of tax under Section 8 of the Sales Tax Act by incorporating such plants, their parts and accessories as exempted goods under Entry 51 of the 5th Schedule. 2. For the assessment year 1996-97, the Petitioner appears to have disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 18,99,230/- from the sale of such plants manufactured by it. The Assessing Authority however declined to treat the sales as exempt from payment of tax. The Authority was of the opinion that the turnover represented execution of works contract by the Petitioner, which were taxable after the 5th of September, 1996 when Entry 55 of the Fifth Schedule was deleted and Entry 43 inserted in the Sixth Schedule. Consequently, while exempting a turnover of Rs. 3,51,025/- relatable to the period before 5th of September, 1996 and after granting deductions on the material purchased by the Petitioner from registered dealers the Assessing Authority brought to tax the remainder of the turnover and raised a demand accordingly. It also issued notices to the Petitioner calling upon it to show cause why penalties proposed therein be not levied upon him. It also issued notices to the Petitioner calling upon it to show cause why penalties proposed therein be not levied upon him. Aggrieved the Petitioner has called in question the validity of the order of assessment as also the notices aforementioned in the present Writ Petitions. 3. Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Gandhi, strenuously argued that the Petitioner was admittedly engaged in the manufacture of Gobar Gas Plants, the sale whereof was in clear terms exempted under Entry 51 of the Fifth Schedule. He urged that the mere fact that the plants were commissioned at the sites identified for the purpose by the Panchayat or the customer did not change the nature of the transaction between the Petitioner on the one hand and the purchaser on the other. The Assessing Authority, argued the learned Counsel, fell in a palpable error in holding that the transaction was in the nature of execution of a works contract taxable under Entry 43 of the Sixth Schedule. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel upon an order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 13120 of 1989 disposed of on 20th of October, 1992, in which the Petitioner had questioned the correctness of a similar order made by the Assessing Authority for the period 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1987. That was also a case, where the Assessing Authority had treated the transactions between the Petitioner and its customers as the execution of a works contract, hence taxable. This Court had not however found favour with the said view and set aside the order made by the Assessing Authority. It is urged that even when the said order was delivered before the addition of Entry 43 of the Sixth Schedule, the principle on which the order proceeded remained valid and applicable to the assessment year with which we are concerned in the present Writ Petitions. 4. On behalf of the Respondents, it was on the other hand argued that the reaction of the plant was entirely undertaken at the place of the customers and since the plant required the construction of an underground cement tank, it was not possible for the manufacturer to manufacture any such tank and make a sale thereof so as to attract the application of Entry 51 of the Fifth Schedule. It was contended that so long as any sale involved the process of fabrication or execution of civil works as a part of the transaction between the seller on the one hand and the purchaser on the other, the same would more appropriately fall in the category of works contract. The Assessing Authority was on that view justified in treating the transaction to be a works contract, hence taxable under the Act. 5. Section 8 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act deals with exemption of tax under the Act and provides that no tax shall be payable under the said Act on the sale of goods specified in the Fifth Schedule subject to the conditions and the exceptions if any set out therein. Entry 51 of the Fifth Schedule, with which we are concerned in the present case reads as under: Gobar-gas plants and parts and accessories thereof 6. It is evident from the Entry that what is exempted from the levy of tax is not only a plant as a composite unit but also parts and accessories thereof. The intention appears to be to promote the use of such plants as argued on behalf of the Petitioners by those in rural areas, where such plants provide a relatively cheaper source of fuel. The plant may comprise steel items, HDPE pipes, burners, walls, chips, fringes, iron bars and other hardware items in addition to a tank, which may be a cement tank or even a tank made out of iron sheets. It is not disputed that instead of a cement tank constructed at the site of installation, a Gobar Gas Plant may as well use a steel plant in its place. If that be so, sale of any such plant would according to the learned Government Advocate be a sale that would be exempt under Entry 51 (supra). What according to the Respondent makes the difference is the fact that the plants sold by the Petitioner have not used steel fabricated tanks but underground cement tanks constructed at the sites identified by the customers. Any such civil works although related only to a part only of the plant sold by the Petitioners takes, according to the Respondents, the transaction out of the purview of Entry 51 to be taxed as a transaction involving execution of a works contract under Entry 43 of the Sixth Schedule. Any such civil works although related only to a part only of the plant sold by the Petitioners takes, according to the Respondents, the transaction out of the purview of Entry 51 to be taxed as a transaction involving execution of a works contract under Entry 43 of the Sixth Schedule. There is, in my opinion, no logical basis for that view. Entry 51 does not make any distinction between a Gobar Gas Plant, which makes the use of steel tank and sold as a composite unit to the customer on the one hand and a plant, which requires the constructing of an underground cement tank. In either situations, what is sold by the dealer is a Plant. If the sale involves or requires the construction of a cement tank at the site provided by the customer the same would not change the character of the transaction between the seller and the purchaser. What is purchased even in such a case is nothing but a Gobar Gas Plant no matter the process of purchase involves the fabrication/construction of an underground cement tank also. There is no gain said that if the intention of the Legislature was to make a distinction between the plants that use steel fabricated tanks and did not involve any construction of steel works on the one hand and those, in which the construction of an underground cement tank was necessary, it could have done so by making an explicit provision to that effect. The absence of any indication in Entry 51 or for that matter in any other Entry in either the Fifth or the Sixth Schedule that any such distinction was ever intended to be made is sufficient to show that Gobar Gas Plants are, regardless of the nature of technology used for the same and regardless whether they are fabricated at the place of the manufacturer/seller or at the place, where the customer wants them to be installed, Gobar Gas Plants, the sale whereof would be exempt under Entry 51. The argument that the transaction between the seller and the purchaser is a works contract falling under Entry 43 must therefore be rejected not only for what has been stated above but also on the principle that if a specific provision in regard to a subject is made, the general or residuary provisions cannot be invoked to levy a tax. The argument that the transaction between the seller and the purchaser is a works contract falling under Entry 43 must therefore be rejected not only for what has been stated above but also on the principle that if a specific provision in regard to a subject is made, the general or residuary provisions cannot be invoked to levy a tax. Besides, in fiscal matters, an interpretation that is more favourable to the tax payer must be adopted for taxes cannot be levied or collected on the strength of inferences. 7. In the result, these Petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned order of assessment and notices made by the Respondent as also the penalty notices issued to the Petitioner shall stand quashed. Consequently, the sale of Gobar Gas Plants effected by the Petitioner for the year 1996-97 are held to be exempt under the provisions of Section 8 read with Entry 51 of the Fifth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act. 8. No costs.