DIVAN, C.J. - The principal question in each of these four writ petitions is whether seat covers are accessories or not. It is clear in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in A. C. Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh ([1976] 37 S.T.C. 378 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1418), that the term "accessories" in the schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is used to describe goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition. "Accessories" are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. The deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other uses also. It is its general or predominant user which determines the category in which an article will fall. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it is clear that seat covers will also be "accessories" and since powers of revision have been utilised to bring the turnover in respect of these seat covers to tax, it cannot be said that revisional powers have been wrongly utilised by the Commissioner.

This conclusion wou