The main legal point established in the judgment is that the understanding of the words used in the law levying sales tax is crucial in determining tax liability.

( 1 ) IN these two sales tax appeals, the following question of law arises for consideration :

"whether the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes was right in holding that old aluminium vessels purchased by the appellant were liable to tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax act of 1957 ?"

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : the appellant is M/s. Prabhat Rolling Metal Works, Amargol, having its industry at Amargol, hubl. The assessment years concerned are 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981 and 1st january, 1982 to 31st December, 1982. During the assessment years, the appellant had purchased aluminium scrap, in that pieces of aluminium metal as also old aluminium vessels, both of which were used in the manufacture of new aluminium vessels. These purchases were made from unregistered dealers, under the circumstances, no tax was leviable. There is also no dispute that the pieces of aluminium metals as also old aluminium vessels, which the appellant purchased, were used for manufacturing new aluminium vessels for sale. Therefore, the assessing authority proposed to levy tax on the purchase turnover of the old aluminium vessels also. The appellant, however, objected on the ground that as aluminium vessels as such were exempt from tax under the provisions of the Act, the tax was leviable only on the pieces of aluminium metals purchased by the appellant and not on the old aluminium vessels. This contention was negatived by the assessing authority. The relevant portion reads : "the main contention of the dealers is that they are not liable to purchase tax under section 6 in respect of unregistered dealers purchases of old aluminium vessels on the ground that aluminium vessels are exempt from tax from 29th March, 1981. They have no objection to assess tax under section 6 in respect of unregistered dealers purchases of aluminium scrap. On verification, I found that the dealers have no doubt purchased aluminium vessels from registered dealers and unregistered dealers and also aluminium scrap to some extent, and the same have been consumed in the manufacture of new aluminium vessels. In my view, old aluminium vessels are nothing but scrap which were ultimately used in the manufacture of new aluminium vessels. They have not sold old aluminium vessels but used them for manufacture and thus disposed of the same other than by way of sale in the State and as such I hold that the said purchases of old aluminium vessels are nothing but only scrap. Further, I find from the trading profit and loss account filed by the dealers that they have purchased only scrap. I therefore overrule their contentions in this behalf. As regards purchases of aluminium scrap and vessels of Rs. 46,453. 25 made from registered dealers, the same having been purchased from registered dealers for which a list has been filed in being allowed. Further, the sales turnover of aluminium utensils up to 8th March, 1981 is adopted as per form 3 filed at Rs. 2,36,795. 33 and consequently the exempted sales turnover of aluminium utensils works out as under. " accordingly, the purchase turnover relating to old aluminium vessels was also brought to tax. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority the appellant presented appeals before the appellate authority. Appeals were allowed accepting the contention of the appellant. The commissioner, however, was of the view that the order of the appellate authority was prejudicial to the Revenue and therefore proposed to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his suo motu revisional power under section 22-A of the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant filed its objections. The objections were overruled and the order of the appellant authority was set aside and that of the assessing authority was resorted. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented these appeals.

( 3 ) SRI E. R. Indrakumar, l