Judgment:- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that bed sheets made of cloth woven on powerloom is a separate commodity and is not entitled to sales tax exemption under Item 10 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called as the KGST Act for short). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and have also gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. The assessments involved in this case are for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The appellant's case is that bed sheet made of powerloom cloth is essentially cloth as such and it is entitled to exemption under the specific entry provided under Item 10 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act. However, the finding of the Assessing Officer confirmed by the learned Single Judge following the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1980) 46 STC 256, is that bed sheet is a product made of cloth and so much so when there is no specific exemption for bed sheets the item falls outside the general category of powerloom cloth, covered by Item 10 of the Third Schedule above stated. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the specific entry providing for rate of sales tax on bed sheets was brought into the First schedule to the KGST Act on 31/12/1999. Relying on this, the contention raised is that until the introduction of the specific entry providing rate of tax on bed sheets, what is required to be considered is whether the cloth from which it is made is woven on powerloom or handloom, both of which are exempted under the specific entry in the Third Schedule to the KGST Act. The undisputed fact is that appellant is only a trader in purchase and sale of bed sheets, pillow covers etc. which are made of cotton cloth but woven on powerloom. Item 10 of the Third Schedule provides for specific exemption on cloth woven on powerloom and therefore the question to be considered is whether bed sheet answers the description of "cloth" entitling the appellant for exemption. 4. which are made of cotton cloth but woven on powerloom. Item 10 of the Third Schedule provides for specific exemption on cloth woven on powerloom and therefore the question to be considered is whether bed sheet answers the description of "cloth" entitling the appellant for exemption. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that lack of specific entry in the First Schedule providing for rate of tax on an item does not lead to exemption for the commodity because the residuary entry of the First Schedule specifically states that all those items which are not covered by specific entries would be subject to rate of tax at 8%. We do not think there can be any dispute on this proposition because entries of the First Schedule providing for rate of tax on various commodities are not thoroughly exhaustive though most of the generally produced and traded commodities are specifically covered therein. However, the residuary entry providing rate of tax on commodities other than those stated in the First Schedule only indicates that there are unenumerated items which are taxable under the general entry. So much so, the question whether exemption is available to a commodity has to be found out from the exemption entry itself and the scope of it will have to be considered with reference to other entries in the same schedule. For easy reference we extract hereunder Entry 10 of the Third Schedule along with certain other entries of the same Schedule, which will throw light on the scope and meaning of the exemption entry relied on by the appellant. "Entry Goods exempted from tax 6. Bed covers, teapoy covers, towels, napkins made of handloom cloths. --- --- --- --- 10. Cloth woven on powerloom 11(i) Cotton fabrics covered under heading Nos.52.05, 52.06, 52.07, 52.08, 52.09, 52.10, 52.11, 52.12, 58.01, 58.02, 58.03, 58.04, 58.05, 59.01, 59.03, 59.05, 59.06 and 60.01 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Central Act 5 of 1986) --- --- --- --- 27. Handloom cloth and handloom readymade garments" 5. Before proceeding to consider the scope of the above entries, we should keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Handloom cloth and handloom readymade garments" 5. Before proceeding to consider the scope of the above entries, we should keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 's case, wherein the Supreme Court has held that "it is fairly well settled principle that the words or expressions must be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it and it is the sense in which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention when the statute was enacted." 6. The whole purpose of interpretation is to find out legislative intend in the grant of exemption to cloth woven on powerloom under Entry 10 of the Third Schedule. It may be noticed from Entry 6 alone that legislature did not intend "cloth" to cover products such as bed covers, toilet covers, towels, napkins etc. made of cloth. The contention of the appellant is that bed sheet is essentially cloth and it is only specified dimension of the woven cloth cut and stitched on either side to prevent tread loosing and escaping. Certainly, the value addition is not significant because the price of bed sheet is essentially the price of the cloth and not due to the value addition made by conversion of the same into bed sheet. We cannot take the view that the legislature is not aware of the subtle distinction between cloth or bed sheet or bed cover made of such cloth. However, when the legislature intends to treat bed sheet, bed cover, towels etc. as separate products though made of cloth, the Court has no authority to take the position that both cloth and products like bed sheet are one and the same. It may be noticed from Item 6 of the Third Schedule itself that the exemption to bed cover, teapoi cover, towels etc. is limited to products made from handloom. The legislative intention is very clear that if bed cover, teapoi cover etc. are not made of handloom cloth, the same would not fall within the Third Schedule. 7. It may be noticed from Item 6 of the Third Schedule itself that the exemption to bed cover, teapoi cover, towels etc. is limited to products made from handloom. The legislative intention is very clear that if bed cover, teapoi cover etc. are not made of handloom cloth, the same would not fall within the Third Schedule. 7. Even though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that item referred to in entry 6 is bed cover, which does not take in bed sheet, we do not think the subtle distinction between bed cover and bed sheet has any significance because essentially both are cloth cut into the size of coat with both ends stitched, and probably in the case of bed cover, generally called bed spread, there may be embellishments and decorations, which are not compulsory to make it a bed cover. In fact anything to cover bed is a bed cover in the literal sense though normally people sleep on bed sheets and covering the bed with bed cover is done during day time to decorate and to prevent dust falling on bed. So long as the stitching work is very little for conversion of cloth into bed cover or bed sheet, we feel there is no distinction between both for the purpose of levy of tax or exemption. In other words, bed sheet and bed cover made of handloom cloth are exempted from tax. Both bed cover and bed sheet made of powerloom cloth are not exempted from tax under any of the entries of the Third Schedule, and so much so, the same cannot be taken as covered by exemption under Entry 10, which covers only cloth woven on powerloom. 8. Even though learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Division Bench decisions of the Orissa High Court in Radhika v. State of Orissa, reported in 39 STC 93 and of this Court in Radha's Fancy Piece Goods Merchants v. State of Kerala, reported in 48 STC 361, we find that these decisions are neither applicable on facts nor could be accepted as laying down the correct law. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken a contrary view in the case of another assessee in declaring exemption on bed sheets made of powerloom cloth, and the Department has not challenged the same. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken a contrary view in the case of another assessee in declaring exemption on bed sheets made of powerloom cloth, and the Department has not challenged the same. Learned Government Pleader rightly pointed out that the order of the Tribunal is not binding on the State. We agree with the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader because omission to file revision in a case whether based on wrong legal advice or on account of small amount of tax involved in such cases does not bar the Government in taking correct stand in other cases. 10. Further it may be noticed that cloth as such is separately covered by exemption clause under Item 11(i) which takes in all cotton fabrics covered under various headings of the Central Excise Tariff referred to therein. The appellant has a specific case that bed sheets sold by them are made of cotton fabric and so much so going by the very same argument bed sheet made of cotton fabric should cover specific exemption under Entry 11(i) of the Third Schedule, i.e. without depending on Entry 10 as such. However, we notice from the Central Excise tariff that bed sheets, pillow covers, table cloth, blankets, etc. are covered by specific HSN code numbers, and bed sheet is an item specifically falling under HSN code No.6304.19.10. It may be noticed that various tariff entries referred to in Item No.11(i) of the Third Schedule does not take in the above HSN Code, which means that even under the Central Excise Tariff bed sheet is treated as a separate item different from cloth from which it is made. It is worth noticing that when exemption is granted to handloom cloth along with it even readymade garments made of handloom cloth are covered by the said exemption entry i.e. Item 27 of the Third Schedule. So much so, we are of the view that Entry 10 of the Third Schedule is not intended to cover any products made from cloth such as bed sheets, bed covers, towels, napkins etc.. In our view the learned Single Judge rightly held so. So much so, we are of the view that Entry 10 of the Third Schedule is not intended to cover any products made from cloth such as bed sheets, bed covers, towels, napkins etc.. In our view the learned Single Judge rightly held so. Even though learned counsel for the appellant prayed for waiver of interest, learned Government Pleader opposed stating that at least after the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant had no justification to withhold payment of tax. We feel, since the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in another case, the appellant can be granted waiver until the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge against the appellant. We therefore, waive interest until the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge provided the arrears along with interest payable from 27/07/2007 till date of payment is paid within two months from today. However, if payment is not made as above, the partial waiver of interest granted by us will stand automatically vacated and the respondents can proceed for recovery of entire arrears with interest till date of payment. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.