JUDGMENT Per A.P. SHAH, C.J. Heard learned counsel for both sides. By consent the writ petition as well as writ appeal are taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner is a proprietary firm. The petitioner purchased lay flat tubings and PP bags against ‘C declaration form issued by the firm under Section 8(1) read with 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The first respondent issued a notice dated 24.10.2005 proposing to levy entry tax on the lay flat tubings and PP bags so imported by the petitioner against the issue of ‘C declaration form. According to the first respondent, the lay flat tubings would fall under Serial No.24 of the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. A reply dated 23.11.2005 was filed by the petitioner contending inter alia that there could be no levy of entry tax on the import of lay flat tubings and the PP bags for the reason that they were essentially products of polypropylene. The first respondent by his order dated 28.4.2006 confirmed tax and penalty demand on the petitioner holding that lay flat tubings and PP bags, were falling under Sl.No.24 of the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. The first respondent placed reliance on the clarification of the Principal Commissioner dated 19.8.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is well settled by a series of judgments of the Supreme Court including the judgment in Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, AIR 1999 SC 3341 : 1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC) that the Revenue can withdraw the earlier clarification issued with prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Consequently the clarification dated 19.8.2005 had no application to the assessment year in question. He also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 139 STC 477. 4. In reply, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that a clarification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 cannot bind the sales tax authorities acting under judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. He submitted that such clarifications are communicated to the concerned dealers, but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law. He submitted that such clarifications are communicated to the concerned dealers, but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law. There can be no estoppel against the statute. The understanding of the Commissioner whether in favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than his understanding and opinion. In support of his submission, learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1993 SC 2414 : (1993) 90 STC 47 and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P.F.F.R. (Mad.) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2005) 140 STC 97. 5. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether entry tax is leviable on the purchase turnover of the two products purchased by the company under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in spite of the clarification dated 25.4.2003 issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001? 6. Entry No. 24 was introduced by amendment of Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 which reads as follows: ""24. Low density polyethylene and polypropylene in all forms including granules, tapes and wastes."" In pursuant to a query raised by the petitioner, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a clarification vide his letter dated 25.4.2003 that the words ‘in all forms’ contained in the entry (entry No. 24) denote raw materials only, low density polyethylene and polypropylene in all forms including granules, tapes and wastes and does not include the finished products. Subsequently the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes took the opinion of the Special Government Pleader and decided that the products -lay flat tubing of PP and lay flat tubing of LD would fall under Entry No. 24. Consequently a show cause notice dated 24.10.2005 was issued to the petitioner and by order dated 28.4.2006 the demand of tax and penalty was confirmed. 7. Consequently a show cause notice dated 24.10.2005 was issued to the petitioner and by order dated 28.4.2006 the demand of tax and penalty was confirmed. 7. The power to issue clarification is traced in Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which reads as follows: ""28-A. Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - (1) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on an application by a registered dealer, may clarify any point concerning the rate of tax under the Act. Such clarification shall be applicable to the goods specified in the application: Provided that no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by proof of payment of such fee, paid in such manner, as may be prescribed. (2) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may, if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of uniformity in the work of assessment and collection of tax, clarify any point concerning the rate of tax under this Act or the procedure relating to assessment and collection of tax as provided for under this Act. (3) All persons working under the control of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall observe and follow the clarification issued under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2)“. 8. The Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1986 SC 757 : (1986) 158 ITR 102 held that even though the clarifications issued by the revenue being executive in character cannot alter the provisions of the Act, since they are in the nature of concessions, they can always be prospectively withdrawn. In Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1991 SC 1806 : (1990) 183 ITR 1, while dealing with Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, which is pari materia to Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Supreme Court held that the benefits of such circulars to assessees have been held to be permissible even though the circulars might have departed from the strict tenor of the statutory provision and mitigated the rigour of law. In Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries AIR 1997 SC 3871 : (1998) 111 STC 254, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when the Central Board of Excise and Customs made all others to understand a notification in a particular manner and when the latter have acted accordingly, it is not open to the Revenue to turn against such persons on a premise contrary to such instructions and such circulars would be binding on the Department. 9. The Supreme Court in Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra), while interpreting Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is pari materia to Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act held as follows: ”It is clear from the above said pronouncements of this Court that, apart from the fact that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time.“ 10. In Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Industries, AIR 2002 SC 453 : 126 STC 122, the Supreme Court observed as follows: ”11. We need to make it clear that, regardless of the interpretation that we have placed on the said phrase, if there are Circulars which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue.“ Similar is the view in UCO Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1999 SC 2082 : (1999) 237 ITR 889, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries, AIR 2000 SC 3442 : (2001) 122 STC 100, and Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2004 (3) SCC 488 : (2004) 165 ELT 257 ”. 11. 11. In Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (supra), the Division Bench of this Court after examining the aforesaid decisions held as follows: “8.6.10. It is, therefore, clear that even though the clarification dated 9.11.1989 is executive in nature, the same is binding on the authorities till the concessions given to the petitioner under the clarification were withdrawn, which could, be done only prospectively, viz., in the instant case, with effect from 28.1.2002, and the Revenue could not refuse the benefit of the clarifications dated 9.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 in respect of levy of purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act for the impugned assessment year 1996-97.” 12. It is thus clear that the clarification issued by the Special Commissioner dated 23.8.2005 cannot affect prejudicially the assessee in the assessment year in question. The learned Special Government Pleader, however, placed reliance on a two-Judge Bench judgment in Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer (supra) and submitted that the clarification cannot be contrary to the statute and there cannot be estoppel against the statute. We have gone through the decision in Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer (supra). In that case the Apex Court was concerned with Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act which confers power on the State Government to remove difficulties. Sub-section (1) confers the said power to meet the problems arising from transition from the previous Sales Tax Act to the present Sales Tax Act. An order under sub-section (1) is required to be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. Sub-section (2) is general in nature. In the context of the direction issued under Section 42 by the State Government, the Court observed that the understanding of the Government, whether in favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than its understanding and opinion. We do not think that this decision has any application to the facts of the present case. 13. In the context of the direction issued under Section 42 by the State Government, the Court observed that the understanding of the Government, whether in favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than its understanding and opinion. We do not think that this decision has any application to the facts of the present case. 13. In the judgment of the Division Bench in P.F.F.R. (Mad.)Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai (supra), the question to be decided was whether a writ petition was maintainable against the clarification issued by the Commissioner under Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, wherein the Court held that though the circular issued by the Commissioner under Section 28-A is not binding on the assessing authority or the appellate authority, yet the Court cannot overlook the fact that since the Commissioner is a superior authority to the assessing officer or appellate authority, it would be impracticable to expect the subordinate authority to take a view contrary to the view expressed by the Commissioner and hence the writ petition would be maintainable. This judgment has also no application to the facts of the present case. 14. In the result, the writ petition partly succeeds. It is declared that the clarification dated 23.8.2005 would have only prospective application and consequently the impugned assessment order dated 28.4.2006 is quashed and set aside. In view of the above order, the writ appeal does not survive and it is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous applications are closed.