ORDER : 1. These revision petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 84 of Rajasthan Value Added Tax VAT Act, 2003 (for short “the VAT Act”) arising out of a common order dated 8.5.17 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in appeals preferred inter alia by the petitioners-assessees were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners-assessees in their quarterly and annual returns filed for the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, under the provisions of the VAT Act declared the sale of the commodity “saji” as exempt from tax under Schedule I of the VAT Act. As a matter of fact, commodity “saji” during the relevant assessment year was exigible to tax @ 5% under Entry No.153 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act, which reads as under: “153. Kirana items namely kala namak, sendha namak, coconut power, edible gond, isabgoal husk, rai, postdana, magaj of all kinds, saffron, kaluanji, saji and dry fruits.” (emphasis supplied) 3. The Assessing Authority issued notice to show cause to the assessees under Section 26, 55, 58, 61(1), 64 of the VAT Act. In response to the notice, the assessees filed the reply claiming that ‘saji’ and ‘papar khar’ are one and the same commodity. It was contended that vide notification no.2322 dated 25.2.08 issued by the State Government, the entry ‘papar khar’ existing at S.No. 271, taxable @ 4%, was deleted and vide yet another notification no.2319 dated 25.2.08, ‘papar khar’ was placed at S.No.37 of the Schedule I and thus, ‘papar khar’ falls in the category of ‘Goods exempt from tax’. Vide yet another notification dated 27.8.08, the existing entry at S.No.37 of Schedule I containing item ‘papar khar’ was deemed to have been substituted w.e.f. 1.4.06. Accordingly, the petitioners contended that ‘saji’ is a type of khar which is included within the expression ‘papar khar’ and thus, was exempted from payment of tax w.e.f. 1.4.06. The assessees contended that even prior to coming into force of the VAT Act, under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short “Act of 1994”), vide circular dated 29.10.94 issued by the State Government, it was clarified that ‘saji’ is exempted from tax being included within the expression ‘papar khar’. That apart, the assessees contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of the change of opinion is illegal. 4. That apart, the assessees contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of the change of opinion is illegal. 4. The Assessing Authority arrived at the finding that the clarificatory notification issued under the Act of 1994 does not survive after coming into force of VAT Act wherein by way of Entry No.153 of Schedule IV ‘saji’ is specifically made taxable @ 4% whereas ‘papar khar’ was specifically included at S.No.271 of Schedule IV, the entry which stands subsequently deleted vide notification dated 25.2.08. The Assessing Authority observed that after specific inclusion of ‘saji’ and ‘papar khar’ in the IV Schedule, the circular dated 29.10.94 issued by the State Government has rendered redundant. The Assessing Authority observed that ‘saji’ and ‘papar khar’ are known as two different commodities in the market and the sources whereof are also different and thus, the same cannot be considered to be one and the same commodity. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the liability of tax, interest and penalty under Section 61(1) of VAT Act vide assessment order dated 12.3.13. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appeals preferred by the assessees were dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Officer, Bikaner vide order dated 6.5.14/7.5.14. The second appeals preferred by the assessees before Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer also stand dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, these petitions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that ‘papar khar’ and ‘saji’ are one and same commodity used in manufacture of ‘papar’ . Item ‘saji’ is type of ‘khar’ which is normally also referred as ‘papar khar’ by the traders and the consumers. Drawing the attention of the Court to circular dated 29.10.94 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, clarifying that since sale of ‘papar khar’ is exempted from payment of tax vide notification dated 7.3.94, the ‘saji khar’ used in manufacture of ‘papar’ is also exempted from tax and thus, even the revenue is treating the ‘papar khar’ and ‘saji’ as same commodity. Learned counsel submitted that after coming into force of the Act of 2003, ‘papar khar’ and ‘saji’ were placed at Serial No.271 & 153 respectively of Schedule IV of Act of 2003, taxable @ 4%, however, the entry no.271 in the Schedule IV dealing with the ‘papar khar’ has been deleted w.e.f. 1.4.06 and the ‘papar khar’ has been added in the entry no.37 of Schedule I vide notification dated 25.2.08. Later, vide notification dated 9.3.11, the entry no.153 of the Schedule IV was also deleted and ‘saji’ was included in the list of goods exempt from tax by insertion of entry no.123 in the Schedule I vide yet another notification dated 9.3.11. Learned counsel would submit that the clarification made vide notification dated 29.10.94 being not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules and also not being superceded specifically shall remain in force and thus, the ‘papar khar’ having been put in the list of exempted goods in Schedule I w.e.f. 1.4.06, ‘saji’ shall also be treated goods exempt from tax w.e.f. 1.4.06. Learned counsel submitted that notification dated 9.3.11 is only a clarificatory amendment inasmuch as the ‘papar khar’ having been exempted from tax, ‘saji’ automatically stands exempted from tax. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the matters of ‘M/s Anjali Enterprises Vs. CTO, Pali & Ors.’ [S.B. Civil Revision (Sales Tax) No.162/2014 and other connected petitions] decided on 2.7.15. Learned counsel submitted that the transactions of sale of ‘saji’ were duly disclosed by the petitioner in the return filed and the same having been assessed by the Assessing Authority, in view of bar contained under Section 26 of VAT Act, the assessment could not have been reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the matter of ‘M/s Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd., Bhilwara Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.’ (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.3730/1999) decided on 14.7.15 and a Bench decision in the matter of ‘CTO, Special Circle ‘A’, Jodhpur Vs. M/s Prithvi Singh’ (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3948/1999) decided on 4.4.14. 7. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. State of Rajasthan and Anr.’ (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.3730/1999) decided on 14.7.15 and a Bench decision in the matter of ‘CTO, Special Circle ‘A’, Jodhpur Vs. M/s Prithvi Singh’ (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3948/1999) decided on 4.4.14. 7. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, after commencement of the VAT Act, the Act of 1994 stands repealed w.e.f. 1.4.06. It is true that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (2) (a) of Section 100, the action taken, notification, order or rule made or issued by the authorities shall be deemed to have been done, taken or issued under the provisions of the VAT Act in so far as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act and rules made thereunder and shall continue to be in force unless and until superseded by anything done or action taken under the VAT Act. But then, it is to be noticed that under the provisions of Act of 1994, the tax payable by a dealer at single point in series of sales by successive dealers, was leviable at such rate as may be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette. However, under the VAT Act, the rates of tax on different goods are specified under the Schedule III to VI attached to the VAT Act. That apart, the goods exempt from tax are specified in the Schedule I and persons or class of persons exempted from tax are also specified in the Schedule II. Suffice it to say that under the Scheme of the VAT Act, the rates of tax have been prescribed in the Schedule which forms part of the Act and thus, unless and until, any particular goods is specifically exempted from tax by inclusion thereof in the I Schedule, the same shall be taxable inasmuch as, as per Schedule V, goods not covered in any other Schedule under the VAT Act or under any notification issued under Section 4 of the Act shall be taxable @ 14%. 9. 9. Obviously, after coming into force of the VAT Act, the notifications issued under the Act of 1994 specifying the rates of tax on different commodities and the notification granting exemption from payment of tax does not survive and thus, any clarification circular issued by the State Government regarding a particular commodity included in the tax schedule or exempted from payment of tax by virtue of notification issued under the Act of 1994, does not remain in force after commencement of the VAT Act w.e.f. 1.4.06. 10. Adverting to the facts of present case, it is to be noticed that treating ‘papar khar’ and ‘saji’ as two different commodities the same have been made taxable @ 4% by inclusion thereof in the Schedule IV of the VAT Act at S. Nos. 271 and 153 respectively. If any commodity is made taxable by specific inclusion thereof in the tax schedule, the question of treating it as exempted from tax does not arise unless by way of amendment of the Schedule, such entries are deleted and same are included in the Schedule I which deals with goods exempt from tax. It is true that Entry No.271 of Schedule IV prescribing rate of tax on ‘papar khar’ stands deleted w.e.f. 1.4.06 and ‘papar khar’ has been included at S. No. 37 in the Schedule I with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.4.06 and thus, the ‘papar khar’ shall be treated to be exempt from tax from the date of the commencement of the VAT Act. It is also not in dispute that the ‘saji’ included at S.No. 153 of Schedule IV also stands deleted vide notification No.2733 dated 9.3.11 and has been included in the entry at S. No. 123 in the Schedule I vide notification No.2729 dated 9.3.11 and thus, w.e.f. 9.3.11 ‘saji’ also stands exempt from tax but during the period interregnum from 1.4.06 to 8.3.11, it remains taxable @ 4% inasmuch as, the notifications dated 9.3.11 have not been given retrospective effect, as in case of ‘papar khar’ which has been specifically deleted from Entry No.271 of Schedule IV and included in the Entry No. 37 of Schedule I vide notifications dated 25.2.08 w.e.f. 1.4.06. 11. 11. The contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners that the notifications dated 9.3.11 are only clarificatory and the State Government intended to exempt ‘saji’ from tax keeping in view the fact that it is included in the ‘papar khar’ in common parlance is devoid of any merit. The action of the State Government in deleting the taxable commodity ‘papar khar’ from the Schedule IV and inclusion thereof in the Schedule I retrospectively, but not giving retrospective effect to the notifications issued deleting the commodity ‘saji’ from the Schedule IV and inclusion thereof in the Schedule I, by itself shows that ‘saji’ is intended to be kept taxable @ 4% during the intervening period from the date of commencement of the VAT Act till the date of issuance of the notification dated 9.3.11 i.e. for the period from 1.4.06 to 8.3.11. In the considered opinion of this court the notifications dated 9.3.11 issued by the State Government are quite unequivocal and therefore, there is no possibility of applying theory of intendment so as to treat the notifications issued in respect of the commodity ‘saji’ as clarificatory, presuming that the said commodity stands included within the commodity ‘papar khar’, which stands exempt from tax w.e.f. 1.4.06. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Merely because, at one point of time, while interpreting a notification issued exempting a particular commodity exempt from tax, by way of clarificatory circular yet another commodity was deemed to be included therein, the two commodities though different in common and commercial parlance, shall not always be treated to be one and same commodity. Merely because the ‘saji’ is also used for manufacture of ‘papar’, it is not possible to draw a conclusion that ‘saji’ and ‘papar khar’ both the commodities are one and the same commodity. This court is in agreement with the finding arrived at by the Tax Board that the ‘papar khar’ and ‘saji’ are known as two different commodities in the common and commercial parlance. 13. This court is in agreement with the finding arrived at by the Tax Board that the ‘papar khar’ and ‘saji’ are known as two different commodities in the common and commercial parlance. 13. Coming to the question of permissibility of reassessment proceedings being initiated by the Assessing Authority, it is to be noticed that in the instant case, the petitioners treating the commodity ‘saji’ as exempt from tax filed the return showing the same to be goods exempt from tax whereas, on account of specific inclusion of the said commodity in Schedule IV, it was taxable during the relevant period @ 4%. Indisputably, the assessment of tax on the said commodity escaped because the same was shown to be goods exempt from tax by the petitioners assessees while filing the returns. By virtue of provisions of Section 26 (c) of the VAT Act, an assessment wherein tax has been wholly or in part unassessed or under assessed in anyway or under any circumstances is treated to be escaped assessment and thus, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners is devoid of any merit. Thus, the decisions of this court in M/s Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd., Bhilwara and Prithvi Singh’s cases (supra) do not help the petitioners in any manner in the instant cases. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the revision petitions deserve to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the petitions fail, the same are hereby dismissed.