Judgment :-

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) The question for determination in these Civil Appeals is whether the `Voltage Stabilizer' manufactured and sold by the assessee (respondent herein) ought to be taxed as electrical goods under Entry No. 16 of Schedule to U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 or as electronic goods under Entry No. 74(f) of the Notification No.1223 dated 31st March, 1992?

2) The Revenue contends that the voltage stabilizer is an `electrical goods'. The stand of the assessee is it is `electronic goods'.

3) The facts and the issues in all these civil appeals are identical and, therefore, these are all disposed of by this common judgment.

4) The Respondant/Assessee is in the business of manufacture of voltage stabilizer and sales thereof. The assessing Officer had passed Assessment Order dated March 31, 1997 under Section 41(8) of the U.P Trade Tax Act, 1948, directing S/S. Parikh Gramodyog Sansthan (Respondent) to pay Sales Tax in a sum of Rs. 1,00,875.55 and 19,3438.00 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. This quantification was based on the rate applicable to electrical goods. The Respondents had stated that they were liable to pay taxes at the rates applicable to electronic goods under the old Entry 74(f) and the amended Entry 74(a)(iii) of the Notification, which was 4% for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

5) The assessment years and the tax demand vary in each of these appeals.

6) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated March 31, 1997, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Trade Tax, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.1997. Subsequently, the Respondents filed second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad. The Tribunal while modifying the order passed by the assessing officer had held that voltage stabilizers were `electronic' goods and not `electrical' goods, primarily on the ground that electrical goods involve the consumption of electricity, whereas an electronic device functions through the creation of an electron vacuum in the semiconductor material. The Tribunal also referred to a certificate issued by the Principal Director of Electronic Service and Training Center of Ram Nagar, Nainital, which is a government society, that voltage stabilizers are electronic devices. The Tribunal also noted that the Text Book `Basic Electronic Engineering' by M.L Anumani, categorises voltage stabilizers as electronic goods. The Tribunal also had taken note of circular issued by the U.P government dated 31.3.1992 (Notification No. 1223), the notification issued by the Punjab Government dated 10.11.1987, as well as Exemption No.12 of Entry No. 23 of the Excise Act, all of which categorizes voltage stabilizers as electronic goods.

7) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revenue had filed Revision Petition in the High Court at Allahabad. Before the High Court, the revenue had relied on the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in another assessee's case, wherein it was held that voltage stabilizers are electrical goods. The High Court has agreed with the reasoning of the Trade Tax Tribunal. While rejecting the stand of the revenue, has observed that the order of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, passed under Section 35 of U.P Trade Tax Act does not give out any reason as to why the automatic voltage stabilizer should be treated as electrical goods and not as electronic goods and, therefore, the reliance placed on the order passed by the Commissioner would not come to the aid of the revenue. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition. That is how the revenue is before us in these appeals.

8) The learned counsel Sri Aarohi Bhalla would submit that, the commodity in question is electrical goods since it works on the principles of application of electric energy and also facilitates the distribution and transmission of electrical energy and therefore, it satisfies the twin tests that are required under Entry 16