JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:—The short question for our consideration in this appeal is whether a sugarcane crusher (kohlu) is an "agricultural implement" within the meaning of U. P. Government notification dated November 14, 1980 and as such is exempt from levy of Sales Tax.

2. M/s. D. H. Brothers Pvt. Ltd., a registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, is engaged in the sale of machinery including sugarcane crushers. After coming into force of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) the State Government issued a notification dated June 7, 1948 exempting agricultural imple- ments from the levy of sales tax. Thereafter fresh notifications were issued from time to time. The relevant notification dated November 14, 1980 enumerated the "Agricultural implements" as under:

"Agricultural implements" worked by human or animal power, including Khurpi, Dibbler, Spade, Hansia (Sickle), Garden Knife, Axe, Gandasa, Chaff Cutters, Shears, Secateurs, Rake, Shovel, Ploughs, Water lifting leather buckets (Pur and Mhot), Rahat and Persian Whell, Chain Pump, Harrows, Hoes, Cultivators, Seed Drills, Threshers, Shellers, Winnowing fans, Paddy weeders, Garden fork, Lopper, Belcha, Bill Hook (Double edge), Kudali, Fork, Garden Hatchet, Bill Hook(Single edge), Hay Bailer, Bund formers, Scrappers, Levellers or Levelling Karahas, Yokes, crop yield Judginghoops, Hand sprayers Hand dusters, Animal driven vehicles including carts having pneumatic tyre wheels, crow bars, sugarcane Planters and accessories, attachments and spare parts of these agricultural implements. "

3. The assessee invoked the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh under Section 35 of the Act claiming that the Kolhu meant for extracting juice from sugarcane was an agricultural implement within the above quoted notification. and as such was exempt from levy of Sales Tax. The Commissioner by his order dated December 31, 1983 decided the question against the assessee. The assessee filed appeal against. the said order before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, under Section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the assessee preferred a revision petition under Section 11 of the Act before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court relying on its earlier decision in Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works v. The U. P. Government, (1963) 14 STC 262 dismissed the revision petition. In that case the question for consideration before the High Court was "whether cane crushers are agricultural implements within the meaning of the words agricultural implements as mentioned in the Government Notification...... and hence exempt from U. P. sales tax". The question was answered in the negative on the following reasoning:-

Cane crushers and boiling pans are used only in the manufacture of gur from sugarcane. Sugarcane is an agricultural produce and the process which results in the production of sugarcane is undoubtedly agriculture, but the production of gur from sugarcane is a manufacturing process and not an agricultural process. The agricultural process comes to an end with the production of sugarcane and when gur is subsequently being prepared it is manufacturing process that commences. Merely because sugarcane is an agricultural produce anything that is done to it after it is produced is not necessarily a continuation of the agricultural process. It cannot be doubted that agricultural produce can be subjected to a manufacturing process; merely because gur is produced out of sugarcane which is an agricultural produce, the process of preparing gur does not become an agricultural process...... An agricultural implement is an implement that is used in agriculture; any implement that is used after the agricultural process comes to an end and a manufacturing process commences is not an agricultural implement.".

4. The High Court in Bharat Engineering case relied upon the following observations of thi