JUDGMENT
Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15th April, 1999 relating to the assessment years. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94,
2. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “Dealer”) was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of Helmet and Footwear. Dealer was holding a recognition certification under Section 4-B of the Act. During the year under consideration, dealer had purchased synthetic resin against Form 3-B. Assessing authority levied the tax on the purchases of synthetic resin treating it as resin under Notification No. ST-11-5787/X-U) (1)/80-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated 7.9.1981 Under the aforesaid notification, resin was liable to tax at the point of first purchase at the rate of 8 percent. Assessing authority levied the tax at the rate of 5 percent because the dealer was holding a recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act. Clam of the dealer was that the synthetic resin is not a resin and not liable to tax at the point of purchase. According to the dealer, it was unclassified item Dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals and deleted the tax levied on the purchases of synthetic resin. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the synthetic resin is not covered under resin and is an unclassified item. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeals.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that when there is specific entry of resin. The synthetic resin cannot be treated as an unclassified item. He submitted that the entry of resin covers both synthetic resin as well as natural resin inasmuch as it cannot be restricted to the natural resin only. Since the resin is a classified item which includes synthetic resin, it cannot be treated as an unclassified item. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that in the case of Quality Chemicals v. State of Gujarat reported in 94 STC 450. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that synthetic resin is a chemical, therefore, synthetic resin either he treated as chemical or unclassified item.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of ‘the Tribunal and the authorities below:
Notification No. ST-II-5787/X-10 (1)/80-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated 7.9.1981 reads as follows:
(Published in U.P. Gazette, dated 7.9.1981)
In exercise of the powers under clause (b)of Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904 and in supersession of all previous notifications issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D of the said Act as it stood before its amendment by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1981 (U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1981), the Governor is pleased to order that, with effect from September 7, 1981, the turnover of first purchase in respect of the goods mentioned in column 2 of the list below shall be liable to tax at the rate specified against each in column 3 thereof:
17. Resin 8 percent.
6. There is nothing in the entry to suggest that it does not include synthetic resin. It includes both. synthetic resin as well as natural resin. Thus, the synthetic resin was liable to tax during the aforesaid years at the point of first purchase under the aforesaid notification. Only that commodity is liable to tax as an unclassified item which is not covered under any of the goods notified under the notification The decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Quality Chemicals v. State of Gujarat (supra) is not relevant and is not applicable to the present case because under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. resin is specifically classified commodity and, therefore, even if synthetic resin is a chemical, it is liable to tax under the specific entry. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. The appeals filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax before the Tribunal are liable to he allowed
7. In the result, all the three revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 15th April, 1999 is set aside and the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax before the Tribunal stand allowed.