BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J.

The only point for consideration in this revision which has been brought by the State Government from the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is whether monobloc pump sets can be classified under the item "electrical goods" occurring in entry 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The full text of the entry is as follows :

"All kinds of electrical goods (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule), including wires, holders, plugs, switches, casings, cappings, reapers, bends, junction boxes, meter boxes, switch boxes, meter boards, switch boards, electrical earthenware and porcelain-ware." *

The present controversy arises out of an assessment for the year 1972-73. It may be observed that item 41-A of the First Schedule which was subsequently inserted with effect from 3rd March, 1975, which incidentally does not apply to the present case makes the following "electrical instruments" as subjects of single point levy :

"41-A. All electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule), but ncluding electrical fans, lighting bulbs, torches, fluorescent tubes and their fittings including chokes and starters and parts and accessories of all such electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances." *

The question in the present case however is whether monobloc pumpsets are to be regarded as "electrical goods". The Tribunal's order in this very assessee's case for a previous assessment year gives a description of the monobloc pumpset. It is stated to be an electrically driven pumpset. The pumpset which is necessary for suction of water is attached to the electrical motor as one and single item of machinery. It is observed that the major part of the pumpset is the electrical motor.Notwithstanding this understanding of the nature of the monobloc pumpset and notwithstanding a finding in the appeal under revision that monobloc pumpset could not be run without the use of electrical energy, the Tribunal held that this type of pumpset cannot be classified as electrical goods, but must be held to be only general machinery, the sale of which is assessable to multi-point rate. In arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal referred to William Jacks and Co. Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras observing that that decision supported their conclusion.

We do not accept the decision of the Tribunal as based on a proper understanding of the expression "electrical goods". The decision in William Jacks and Co. Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras which the Tribunal assumed was a decision in support of their conclusion turns out on examination to have laid down the very opposite conclusion. Certain general observations to be found in that decision are unexceptionable. The learned Judges observed that it would be neither possible nor desirable for a Court to embark on an exhaustive definition or enumeration of what constitutes electrical goods within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act. They also recognised that it would be unwise to devise a formula or test of universal application. At the same time, they repelled the suggestion that the expression "electrical goods" ought properly to be confined only to those goods or items of machinery which are used in the generation, storage, distribution and transmission of electricity. They proceeded to hold that only articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy can be regarded as electrical goods.

The particular kind of commodity the nature of which the learned Judges had examined in that case was an item of machinery containing a pump section to which was attached an electric motor. They found that both the pump section and the electric motor had to be taken as a unit. They further found that the pump could not be worked or driven by any alternative method of power supply. On the basis of these attributes of the item of machinery and taking them as a whole, witho