1. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm involved in the execution of works contract using bitumen emulsion purchased from unregistered dealers outside the State and paying purchase tax on the said purchase of bitumen emulsion. The assessment orders for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 were passed on 21-1-2008, 1-5-2009 and 1-5-2010, respectively, and reassessment order for all three assessment years was passed on 7-1-2013. Reassessment took place mainly on the ground that the correct rate of tax applicable with respect to bitumen emulsion purchased by the petitioner outside the State is covered by residual entry of schedule annexed with the Act and rate of tax would be 12.5% and would not be 4% as per Entry-23 of Schedule-II of Part II of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and accordingly, additional tax liability was imposed upon the petitioner which was challenged in revision under Section 49(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the VAT Act'). The revisional authority partly allowed the revision reducing the additional tax liability. Feeling aggrieved and questioning that order, this batch of writ petitions have been filed.

2. Since common question of law and fact is involved in this batch of writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that bitumen emulsion is covered by Entry-23 under Part II of Schedule-II of the VAT Act and the correct rate applicable would be 4% as per Entry-23 of schedule annexed with the VAT Act. He would further submit that while interpreting different entries, attempts should be made to find out as to whether the same answers the description of the contents of the basic entry and only in the event it is not possible to do so, recourse to the residuary entry should be taken by way of last resort. If two views are possible, one which favours the assessee should be adopted. In case of conflict between two entries one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of the tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred. He would rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mauri Yeast India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2008) 5 SCC 680 and also rely upon the case of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. A.R. Thermosets Private Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 122. He would lastly submit that Entry-23 under Part II of Schedule-II of the VAT Act only uses bitumen (coal-tar) which means that bitumen is commercially known as coal-tar and in its common and commercial parlance coal-tar has been used which does not mean any variation or condition in the entry which contains bitumen. It is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Thermosets Private Limited's case (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that emulsified bitumen, being a part or product of bitumen itself, cannot be classified under residuary entry, as use of bitumen and emulsified bitumen is one and the same and emulsified bitumen is made out of or is a product of bitumen with no physical or chemical changes in it and therefore both the authorities are absolutely unjustified in holding that emulsified bitumen would not fall under Entry-23 of Schedule-II, Part II of the VAT Act.

4. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that Entry-23 under Part-II of Schedule-II of the VAT Act specifies about bitumen (coal-tar), therefore, bitumen emulsion is not included in the said entry as such, residuary entry under Part-IV of Schedule-II would be applicable. He would further submit the case of the petitioner is covered by a decision rendered by the M.P. High Court in the matter of Tiki Enterpr