1. By this order it is proposed to dispose of a batch of two appeals filed against the order of the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), Jammu. The string of incidents, put in a sequence, as they emerge from a study of the file, under consideration, are, very briefly as under: 2. The appellant is an electronic media company engaged in the business of broadcasting/ airing the advertisements and various other information through the medium of its Radio channel in the state of J&K . Vide order dated 30-09-2009 the Assessing Authority assessed the appellant to tax @ 8.4% at a T.T.O of Rs. 21100915.00 and a demand under section 7(10) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, was created against him by bringing into its fold services of broadcasting/ airing provided by the appellant. The appellant assailed this order in an appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Assessing Authority and dismissed his appeal for being devoid of any merit. Aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant, has filed an appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds:- A) That the order under appeal is against the law and facts of the case. B) That the impugned order dated 11-3-2011 is bad in law as the Ld. Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the appellant, being an Electronic Media company, is not liable to tax under the J and K GST Act, 1962 in view of Clarification No.20 of 2008 dated 13-3-2008 issued by the Worthy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, J and K, under section 25-C of the J and K GST Act, 1962. The ld. Appellate Authority while dismissing the contentions of the appellant has failed to record the circumstances under which the said clarification does not apply in the present case when it has been stoutly clarified by the Worthy Commissioner that Electronic Media does not come within the ambit of Notification SRO 117 dated 30-3-2007. The appellant submits that the ld. Appellate Authority has grossly erred in disapproving the said clarification and confirming the assessment order dated 3-9-2009 passed by the respondent. In fact, the assessment order passed by the respondent should have been quashed on this count. As this was not done the impugned order dated 11-3-2011 passed by the ld. The appellant submits that the ld. Appellate Authority has grossly erred in disapproving the said clarification and confirming the assessment order dated 3-9-2009 passed by the respondent. In fact, the assessment order passed by the respondent should have been quashed on this count. As this was not done the impugned order dated 11-3-2011 passed by the ld. Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed on this preliminary ground alone. C) Without prejudice to the above and in addition, the order passed by the respondent is based on mere surmises and conjectures and the impugned order dated 11-3-2011 has been passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority without any application of mind. Thus both the orders of the authorities are liable to be quashed. D) It is submitted that the appellant is rendering the services of airing/broadcasting the advertisement of the customers and as per the records of the respondent it is also the admitted case that the appellant is engaged in the broadcasting of advertisements. However, while taxing the appellant, the respondent has failed to appreciate that the impost is not upon the broadcasting of the advertisements and it is the services in the shape of design and making of the advertisement involving skill and labour, which alone is liable to tax under the J and K GST Act, 1962. The fact that the tax is to be levied on making and designing of the advertisements is also clear from definition of Goods in section 2(h) (i-a), which provides that services provided by the advertisers involving skill and labour, shall alone be treated as goods on which tax becomes payable. But neither the respondent nor the ld. Appellate Authority has observed that in the present case neither skill nor labour is involved in broadcasting the advertisements. It is the expertise in making and designing of the advertisements, which alone involves use of labour and skill and as such the said services shall be liable to tax. In view of the fact that no skill and labour is involved in the broadcasting of advertisements, as per the definition contained in section 2(h)(a-i), both the orders of the authorities deserve to be quashed. E) Because the respondent has levied the tax on airing of advertisements and not on the services in relation to the advertisement, the order of assessment is bad in the eyes of law. E) Because the respondent has levied the tax on airing of advertisements and not on the services in relation to the advertisement, the order of assessment is bad in the eyes of law. The respondent has not only exceeded the jurisdiction to levy tax on those transactions, which do not fall under the SRO 117 read with section 2(h)(a-i) but has also violated the Judicial discipline by ignoring the clarification issued by the Worthy Commissioner of Commercial Tax. In view of this the assessment order dated 3-9-2009 is liable to be quashed. F) That as per the principle of Construction of statute, where a term is not defined in the Parent Act the meaning of the same is to be imported from a parallel legislation. So far as the Service tax is concerned, except in the State of J and K, all other states are governed by Central Service Tax Legislation as per Section 65 of Chapter V of Finance Act. Thus, the Central Service Tax is the only legislation from where the meaning of the term advertiser and concept of services on advertisers can be imported. Under the Central Service Tax Act, services by advertising agency and service by the broadcasters has been separately provided to be taxed, as the Parliament, in its wisdom, is well aware that both these services cannot be clubbed together being of entirely different nature. As per the Central Service Tax Act, advertiser is the person who consumes services and it is the advertising agency which is the service provider and taxed accordingly. In short, if the term advertiser is imported from Central Service Tax Act and assigned to the term advertiser under the J and K GST Act, 1962, then no tax can be imposed upon the appellant as the same is levied on the recipient of service. Thus, the assessment order passed by the respondent and the ld. Appellate Authority in upholding the same is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. G) Since the activities of the appellant are not services under Notification SRO 117 dated 30-3-2007, the appellant is not liable for the levy of any tax under the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. Appellate Authority in upholding the same is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. G) Since the activities of the appellant are not services under Notification SRO 117 dated 30-3-2007, the appellant is not liable for the levy of any tax under the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. H) It is submitted that as the appellant has been under the bonafide opinion on the basis of relevant law applicable on the subject and the legal advice tendered by its counsel that the services rendered by the appellant are not taxable under the J and K GST Act, 1961, and thus no returns were filed by the appellant. As this constitutes reasonable cause for not filing the returns under the Act, 1962, no penalty should have been levied against the appellant. The penalty u/s 17(1) (b) can only be imposed if the default has been committed without reasonable cause. Thus unless a finding is recorded in the penalty order that the default has been committed without reasonable cause penalty cannot be sustained. But a perusal of the assessment shows that the penalty has been imposed in the manner as if it is automatic in nature without consideration of the bonafide plea of the appellant. Moreso, the order levying penalty is also unreasoned, which in itself is a ground for the annulment of penalty. In view of this matter, the order levying the penalty is liable to be quashed. Inspite of the fact that the appellant has specifically challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. Appellate Authority, the ld. Appellate authority failed to record his findings, while upholding the levy of penalty against the appellant. As the penalty has been levied by the respondent and confirmed by the ld. Appellate Authority without considering the reasonable cause tendered by the appellant, same is also liable to be quashed. I) Because the ground of interest, which has been specifically challenged before the Ld. Appellate Authority, was also not decided, the order of the Ld. Appellate Authority deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the demand of interest imposed by the respondent is also not sustainable in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Amritsari Dhaba's case. J) Any other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of hearing. 3. Appellate Authority deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the demand of interest imposed by the respondent is also not sustainable in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Amritsari Dhaba's case. J) Any other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of hearing. 3. While perusing these appeals and having heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant one is tempted to refer to children's literature on life which is bigger and deeper than logic, law or language. Humpty Dumpty said to Alice: "when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less". This was Lewis Caroll, writing in 1872, in a children's book. So the Appellate Authority means that broadcasting/ airing an advertisement does mean advertising, whatever else it might not mean. In order to understand how the Appellate Authority has defined the word "Advertiser" the relevant excerpts of the order are reproduced herein below verbatim: "The foremost argument put across by the learned Advocate is that the word "advertiser" means a consumer who is a person for whom service is rendered and as such the tax under the Act is not leviable on the service provider. This exposition of the learned Advocate is imprecise since the contents of the SRO 117 clearly aim at taxing services rendered by the service provider and not consumer who is a person for whom service is rendered. The intention of the legislature in all circumstances is to tax the service provider who provides services connected with advertisement. Another issue raised by the learned Advocate that the appellant is involved in broadcasting/ airing of advertisement and as such is not exigible to tax also is of no significance because "broadcasting" is an independent ingredient of the process of advertising so the broadcasting/ airing services from an integral part of the process of advertising in which a person who advertises is involved. 4. To further understand the said concept it would be relevant to know the meaning of the word `advertise'. As per New Websters dictionary (Deluxe Encyclopedia edition) advertise means " to bring to public notice by advertising". To understand this word, there is definitely a need to understand what advertising mean. As per the Websters Dictionary it means:- "The attracting of public attention to a product, service, etc. As per New Websters dictionary (Deluxe Encyclopedia edition) advertise means " to bring to public notice by advertising". To understand this word, there is definitely a need to understand what advertising mean. As per the Websters Dictionary it means:- "The attracting of public attention to a product, service, etc. especially by means of paid announcements, broadcasts or printed material." 5. It is immaterial if the person involved in the process of advertising is involved in other processor like designing of advertisements or not, since SRO 117 dated 30-03-2007 circumscribes within its scope service provided by advertisers and not services provided by advertising agency as taxed by Central Excise Act. The learned Advocate has tried to draw a comparison between the service provided by advertising agency with the service provided by advertisers which has a wider connotation and has the potency to bring into its sphere all the services connected with advertisements, Broadcasting being an integral part of the advertising process can by no stretch of imagination be said to be not a part of advertising process". 6. The French moralist, of the 17th Century, Rochefoncauld said, " Men could not live long in society if they were not the dupes of each other". The Commercial fraternity and the Taxing Authorities stand in this relationship to each other. Whatever meaning is chosen to be given to the enterprise of the appellant, the simple fact is that it uses the latest technology of broadcasting, by which it wants and tries to reach as many of listeners as is possible. Dictionaries also change the meaning of words, almost annually now, as the technology becomes more and more sophisticated and undergoes changes. What the section and the Dictionary mean by "advertising" does not exhaust the real reality nor do older editions of Dictionaries give what the newer ones do. Broadcasting/ airing an advertisement are other services in relation to the advertisements. Incidental to this is the logical fact that the advertiser is not the dealer under the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962. Providing of Air Time to those who purchase it for advertising does not require skillful labour which is the acid test for bringing such services under the tax net. Incidental to this is the logical fact that the advertiser is not the dealer under the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962. Providing of Air Time to those who purchase it for advertising does not require skillful labour which is the acid test for bringing such services under the tax net. This can be seen from the definition of Goods as it exists in Section 2(h) (i-a) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, which reads that services provided by the advertisers involving skill and labour, shall alone be treated as goods on which tax becomes payable. 7. Labour, as per Webster, means, "Physical toil or bodily exertion, especially when fatiguing, irksome, or unavoidable, in distinction from sportive exercise; hard, muscular effort directed to some useful end, as agriculture, manufactures, and like; servile toil; exertion; work." Webster defines Skill as, "the familiar knowledge of any art or science, united with readiness and dexterity in execution or performance, or in the application of the art or science to practical purpose; power to discern and execute; ability to perceive and perform; expertness; aptitude; as, the skill of a mathematician, physician, surgeon, mechanic, etc." 8. Section 2 (h) (i-a) clearly provides that unless labour and skill is involved in rendering services by the advertisers, tax cannot be levied. Broadcaster is one who airs/broadcasts various information including prepared advertisements and its contents by way of signals. The business of a radio broadcast channel is to sell the fixed time slots to the owner of the goods who approaches the broadcaster to air the advertisements. The owner of the goods who purchases the time slots is In fact the advertiser. The Madras High Court in Advertising Club v. CBEC reported at 2001 (131) ELT 35 (Mad)= (2003-T10L-110- HC-MAD.ST) in para 21 noted as under:- "the decision as to how and in what format the advertisement should be, how it should be projected, at what point of time it should be flashed, in which areas it should be exhibited or the manner in which it should be drafted and exhibited has got nothing to do with the press media or electronic media. That would be the task of "advertising agency" alone. That would be the task of "advertising agency" alone. Therefore, when we consider the situation where a client goes to the press media and asks for flashing of the advertisement and such advertisement is flashed in the media, this cannot be deemed to be a service provided by the media to such a client. Similarly, when a person approaches the electronic media and flashes an advertisement on the radio or television, as the case may be, the radio or television simply would flash the advertisement as per the instructions of the person concerned but such person will not get the advantage of the expertise of the advertising agency". 9. Assuming, but, not conceding, that skill and labour is a component used in providing Air time to those who purchase it, the question is can the authorities of the Sales Tax change colours like a chameleon? Can they breath hot and cold in the same breath? Can they discriminate with the electronic media companies invidiously ? These observations are germane to the context of the clarification No. 20 of 2008 dated 13-03-2008 of the Ld Commissioner, the extract of which is given below: "Shri Gowhar Wani, Correspondent, ANI Srinagar News has sought clarification under section 25-C of the J&K GST Act, 1962 read with rule 79 of the J&K GST Act, 1962 along with the application fee of Rs. 100/-. The application is examined and found in order. Hence admitted. The applicant has sought clarification as to "Whether the Electronic Media has been brought under preview of Sales Tax". The issue has been examined and it is, hereby, clarified that as per notification SRO 117 dated 30-03-2007, no such entry as mentioned by the applicant exists". Sd/- (Bashir Ahmed) IAS Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Jammu & Kashmir. No: 184/Clari/2461-78/CCT Dated 13-03-2008. 10. The clarification makes it abundantly clear that the same is aimed at bringing the electronic media out of the purview of the sales tax. Whether such a clarification is, or is not, bound on the tax authorities has been examined by the Apex Court in a catena of Judicial pronouncements. No: 184/Clari/2461-78/CCT Dated 13-03-2008. 10. The clarification makes it abundantly clear that the same is aimed at bringing the electronic media out of the purview of the sales tax. Whether such a clarification is, or is not, bound on the tax authorities has been examined by the Apex Court in a catena of Judicial pronouncements. In Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs Indra Industries reported in (2001) 248 ITR 338 (SC) it has been held that a Circular issued by CST is not binding on the Courts or on assessee but the same is binding on the taxing authority and the taxing authority cannot be heard to advance an argument that the circular is contrary to law. In the Paper Products Ltd., v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 3341 it has been held as under: "The question for our consideration in these appeals is: what is the true nature and effect of the Circulars issued by the Board in exercise of its power under section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ? This question is no more res integra in view of the various judgments of this Court. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that the Circulars issued under Section 37-B of the said Act are binding on the Department and the Department cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. These Judgments have also held that the position may be different with regard to an assessee who can contest the validity or legality of such instructions but so far as the Department is concerned, such right is not available. [See Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries ( 1997 7 SCC 47 )]. In the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise ( 1996 (87) ELT 19 ), this Court held that the whole objective of such circulars is to adopt a uniform practice and to inform the trade as to how a particular product will be treated for the purpose of excise duty. The Court also held that it does not lie in the mouth of the Revenue to repudiate a Circular issued by the Board on the basis that it is inconsistent with a statutory provision. (emphasis supplied). Consistency and discipline are, according to this Court, of far greater importance than the winning or losing of court proceedings. The Court also held that it does not lie in the mouth of the Revenue to repudiate a Circular issued by the Board on the basis that it is inconsistent with a statutory provision. (emphasis supplied). Consistency and discipline are, according to this Court, of far greater importance than the winning or losing of court proceedings. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Vs Jayant Dalal Pvt. Ltd. (1997 to SCC 402), this Court has held that it is not open to the Revenue to advance an argument or even file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars issued by the Board. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Kores [India] Ltd. (1997 to SCC 338)". A similar view was taken by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in CIT v. Abdul Ahad Najar, 248 ITR 754, a case concerning the meaning of the term, "manufacture". The Court ruled that the clarification given by the Board granting relief by its communication dated December 2, 1974 to the Jammu Forest Lessees Association was binding on the Department. It is not open to the Revenue to raise contentions contrary to the circulars and instructions issued by the Board. In CIT v. Indra Industries, 248 ITR 338, the Supreme Court held that a circular by tax authorities is not binding on the courts. It is not binding on the assessee. However, the interpretation thereby placed by the taxing authority on the law is binding on that taxing authority. In other words, the Taxing authority cannot be heard to advance an argument that is contrary to that interpretation. The observations in Bengal Iron corporations case can, at best, apply only when a case of estoppel against a statute is made out. Dismissing the departmental appeal with costs, the Supreme Court observed: "It is, therefore, very remarkable that it should be contended on behalf of the very Sales Tax Department whose commissioner issued that circular that it is erroneous. It is very remarkable that the sales tax authorities should instruct their assistant Commissioners who deal with tax assessments in a manner which is, according to them, contrary to the law". 11. It is very remarkable that the sales tax authorities should instruct their assistant Commissioners who deal with tax assessments in a manner which is, according to them, contrary to the law". 11. The ratio of the authorities quoted above is that the Sales Tax Department is bound by the clarifications/ circulars/ instructions issued from time to time by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers vested in him by the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act. Consequently the clarification No. 20 dated 13-03-2008 supra has a binding force on the department. The department cannot take a stand contrary to the said clarification which provides that the electronic media does not fall within the tax net under the Jammu and Kashmir Sales Tax Act. 12. In view of what has been premised above, the orders of both the Appellate and the Assessing Authorities cannot stand in the eyes of law and are accordingly set aside. Records summoned if any be returned forthwith. File shall be consigned to records after due completion. A copy of this order shall be attached with the other file.