SADASIVAM, J.

Writ Appeal No. 116 of 1965 has been preferred by one M. Varadarajulu Naidu, a dealer in cinder, against the decision of Veeraswami, J., as he then was, in Writ Petition No. 1774 of 1964 (M. Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras and Another negativing his contention that cinder is coal, or is a form of coke, falling within entry 1 of Schedule II of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Tax Case No. 267 of 1966 has been filed by the same Varadarajulu Naidu to revise the order of the Board of Revenue holding the same view for the subsequent period. Writ Appeals Nos. 45 and 46 of 1966 have been filed by K. Venkataraman and Company against the judgment of Veeraswami, J., as he then was, in Writ Petitions Nos. 320 and 321 of 1966, dismissing the petitions on the ground that they are covered by his decision in Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras In Tax Case No. 10 of 1964, petitioners Karpagam and Company, dealers in lime and cinder, seek to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal negativing their claim that cinders come under the first item of Schedule II of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Mahabir Singh Ram Babu v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer.

In Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras, Veeraswami, J., as he then was, referred to the above decision in Mahabir Singh Ram Babu v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, and expressed his agreement with the said decision. A Bench of this court has in K. Venkataraman and Co. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (T.C. Nos. 412 to 417 of 1970 and W.A. No. 68 of 1967; observed that the point raised in those cases, namely, whether cinder is coal and, if it is not, its sale will be subject to multi-point tax, is covered by the decision in Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras and pointed out that the same view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Singh Ram Babu v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, and by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chitta Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The only point argued in these cases is covered by the above decision of the Bench of this court in K. Venkataraman and Co. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (T.C. Nos. 412 to 417 of 1970 and W.A. No. 68 of 1967. But the learned Advocates appearing for the dealers in cinder in these cases urged that in view of certain additional arguments advanced by them, the above decision of a Bench of this court require reconsideration by a fuller Bench.In Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras, the learned Judge expressed that he did not find it quite easy to find a solution for the question whether cinder is included within the meaning of the expression "coal, including coke in all its forms" in item 1 of the Second Schedule of the Act, but eventually came to the conclusion that the expression did not include cinder. In fact, in G.O. No. 3300 Revenue, dated 24th August, 1962, the Government held the view that sales of cinder were within the relevant entry and would be subject only to a single point tax. But in view of the subsequent order of the Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which followed the decision in Mahabir Singh Ram Babu v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, the Government changed its view with effect from 1st April, 1963. Coke is described in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1947 Edition, Volume 5, at page 982, as the product obtained by strongly heating coal out of contract with the air until the volatile constituents are driven off. It is also mentioned therein that coke imported into London was known as cinder in the early days of its use. This circumstance was relied on before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 538 of 1962 to contend that coke included cinders. But, this contention was not accepted and hence, T.C. No. 10 of 1964 has been filed in this court.

The learned Advocates for the appellants relied strongly on the meanings given for the words, "coal", " coke"and" cinder" in several dictiona