RAMANUJAM, J.

The assessees are dealers in automobiles. For the year 1962-63, they furnished a taxable turnover of Rs. 21, 44, 810.74 after claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 74, 307.50 at 7 per cent., being the amount relating to the fixing of bodies on chassis. The assessing officer, however, disallowed this claim of exemption. Against the order of disallowance, the assessees appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who allowed the exemption in respect of Rs. 63, 057.50 and sustained the levy at 7 per cent. on a turnover of Rs. 11, 250 being the price of the bodies fitted to the chassis supplied by the customers. As against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessees preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the assessees that the disputed turnover of Rs. 11, 250 represented the amount realised by body-building which is a works contract not amounting to a sale. They also contended that even if the body-building on chassis supplied by the customers is taken as a sale of the bodies, such sale should be taxed only at 2 per cent. multi-point, and not at a single point at 7 per cent. under item 3 of Schedule I. The revenue contended that the bodies built on chassis supplied by the customers fell under item 3 of Schedule I even before its amendment in 1964 and, therefore, the levy at 7 per cent. on the disputed turnover was proper. The Tribunal took the view that the bodies built on chassis supplied by the customers would fall under item 3 of Schedule I even before its amendment and, in that view, sustained the assessment on the disputed turnover at 7 per cent.

In this revision, the learned counsel for the assessees contends that the view taken by the Tribunal could not be sustained, that the statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act No. 7 of 1965 makes it clear that the Government all along treated the entry in item 3 of Schedule I as not including the body-building operations and that even otherwise the entry in item 3, as it stood before its amendment, would not take in the bodies fitted by the assessees to the vehicles supplied by the customers. By the Amending Act No. 7 of 1963, the bodies built on chassis of motor vehicles belonging to others were specifically inserted as a specified item of motor vehicles in item 3. After the amendment, a question as to whether the bodies built on chassis will be a motor vehicle or not, would not arise. But, the question is whether even before the amendment, the bodies fitted to chassis supplied by the customers was intended to be included in item 3. According to the revenue, the bodies fitted to chassis by the assessees would come under the words

"articles adapted for use generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles" *

. It is not the case of the revenue that such bodies can be brought as component parts of the motor vehicles. Dealing with the scope of a similar entry, i.e., item 4 of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, this court in Simpson & Company Limited v. State of Madras expressed the view that the bus bodies would not fall within any one of the goods in the said item. According to the learned Judges, bus bodies cannot be regarded either as component parts of motor vehicles or accessories thereto. They also referred to the fact that the Government themselves proceeded on the basis that the said item did not include the bus bodies fitted to chassis and that it is only on that basis the amendment of item 3 of Schedule I had been brought about for the specific purposes of including bus bodies in that item. The learned counsel for the revenue, however, brings to our notice a decision of the Allahabad High Court in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. Pritam Singh where the question arose as to whether the body mounted on the chassis of a motor vehicle was an integral part of the motor vehicle and, therefore, truck bodies or a component