JUDGMENT :

A.K. Ganguly, J. - Since both the tax revision cases involve identical facts and raise identical questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In both the tax revision cases, two questions of law were raised for consideration of this Court and out of those two questions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued only one. The question on which both the tax revision cases were argued is as under:

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Robinson barley is not covered under SI. No. 33 vide notification dated June 30, 1990 and is not taxable at the first point of sale ?

3. The material facts of the case which gave rise to the aforesaid question are narrated below:

M/s. Satyanarayan Bhandar, the petitioner in both the cases, is a registered partnership firm and carries on business in grocery, stationery, manohary goods, ayurvedic medicines, pan masala and salt, etc. The petitioner is a registered dealer. The assessment of the petitioner-firm was made u/s 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as "the OST Act") for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. After co