D. A. MEHTA, J. - This reference has been made by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ("the Act") at the instance of the State of Gujarat raising and referring the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in holding that (a) sales of bronze powder made during the period July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980 by the opponent for the purpose of sales tax assessment are liable to be taxed under entry 9, Part A of Schedule II to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and not under entry 13 of Schedule III of the said Act; and

(b) Accordingly removing of penalty of Rs. 2,702 imposed under section 45(6) of the said Act."

The respondent-assessee, a registered dealer under the Act, is a trader (reseller) in bronze powder. The assessee paid tax along with the returns on the basis that the bronze powder, which is used for printing of textile fabrics is covered by entry 9, Part A of Schedule II of the Act. However, the Sales Tax Officer treated the sales as falling within entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act and assessed accordingly for the period July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980. He also levied penalty of Rs. 2,702 under section 45(6) of the Act.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal-I), Range 1/2, Ahmedabad. The appeal was dismissed and the order of assessment confirmed. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter further by way of Second Appeal No. 45 of 1985 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, for the reasons stated in its order dated November 11, 1987, allowed the appeal holding that taxability of bronze powder was governed by entry 9, Part A of Schedule II to the Act. The Tribunal further held that the difference between the amount of assessed tax and the amount of tax paid would not exceed 20 per cent of the tax paid and hence, penalty imposed under section 45(6) of the Act was not liable to be sustained and accordingly deleted it.

Mr. Uday R. Bhatt, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the applicant-Revenue, submitted that the assessee was a selling dealer and as it was the assessee who was required to be assessed, the Tribunal committed an error in taking into consideration the use of the goods by the purchasers. In other words, the submission was that to decide as to within which entry a particular item would fall, only the use by a particular purchaser should not be taken into consideration, but all possible uses of the product are required to be taken into consideration. He supported this submission by pointing out from the order of the Tribunal that the Government agent representing the Revenue had categorically submitted before the Tribunal that "over and above its use in the textile industries for bringing out golden coloured designs on the cloths, it has many other uses such as moulding bronze idols, etc.". Mr. Bhatt placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Quality Chemicals v. State of Gujarat [1994] 94 STC 450 and in the case of Gujarat Distributors v. State of Gujarat [1975] 36 STC 116 to submit that the question of interpreting an entry in a taxing Schedule and giving its meaning in the popular sense would arise only if the entry contains language which is capable of being considered in the popular sense. That while construing a word which is of a technical or scientific character, its technical or scientific meaning is required to be assigned.

Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee, has invited attention to the relevant entry being entry No. 9, Part A of Schedule II, to the Act as well as entry No. 13 falling within Schedule III to the Act to submit that entry No. 13 was a residuary entry and the Revenue was in error in treating the goods in which the assessee is dealing as falling within the residuary entry, when there was a specifi