DWIVEDI, J. :- Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act imposes a tax on the sale of goods. S. 3-A (1) empowers the State Government to notify that the turnover in respect of any goods or class of goods shall be liable to tax at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as it may specify in the notification. Section 3-A (2) empowers the Government to fix the rate of tax not exceeding the maximum mentioned therein.

2. Acting under Section 3-A, the Government issued a notification on March 31, 1956. Head 7 of the notification specifies 'chemicals of all kinds.' According to the notification, sales of chemicals of all kinds, which are manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, shall be liable to tax at the point of sale by the manufacturer and in case of goods imported from outside U. P., at the point of sale by the importer.

3. The opposite party is a manufacturer of, and dealer in, sodium silicate and washing soap. In the assessment year 1958-59 the opposite party admittedly sold sodium silicate manufactured by it for Rs. 98,028.000. The Sales Tax Officer treated sodium silicate as a chemical and charged sales tax in accordance with the aforesaid notification. His order was affirmed in appeal. But the Judge (Revisions) reversed his decision. He took the view that sodium silicate was not a chemical. But at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the applicant has referred to this Court this question:

"Whether sodium silicate as used in the manufacture of soap is included in 'chemicals of all kinds' appearing at item 7 of the notification.................. dated 31-3-1956."

4. A Division Bench of this Court has already given, an affirmative answer to this question in the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Banaras Chemicals, 1967-20 STC 246 (All). But the present reference was made before this decision. Counsel for the opposite party has strenuously urged before us that sodium silicate is not a chemical and has requested us to reconsider the decision. But I am quite certain in my mind that Banaras Chemicals, 1967-20 STC 246 (All) is rightly decided.

5. At this stage it is proper to touch upon a minor matter. It seems to me that the reference to the manufacture of soap in the question is wholly immaterial. The opposite party is admittedly a manufacturer of and a dealer in, sodium silicate. It has admittedly sold sodium silicate to buyers in the relevant assessment year. So the material question is whether sodium silicate is a chemical. If it is a chemical within the meaning of that term as used in the notification, it will also be a chemical even when it is used in the manufacture of soap.

6. According to the Judge (Revisions) sodium silicate is not a chemical. He says:

"I interpret the word 'chemical' in relation to its common use and purpose. -Sodium silicate, which is commonly known as water-glass, is never used in any chemical process or chemical industry. It is used as a filler in cheap soap manufacture. The addition of sodium silicate only increases the weight of the soap without in any way adding to the detergent property of the soap. It is purely a mechanical process."

7. In his arguments before us counsel for the opposite party has given only a lukewarm support to this passage. He has now turned the focus on a new argument. He has tried to reinforce this argument from books on science. The argument proceeds in this way: a chemical, in its true scientific sense, is a substance of definite and known composition. Sodium silicate is a compound of sodium and silicate. Its formula is somewhat indefinite. The formula varies between Na2 Sio2 and Na2 Sio4. Accordingly it is not a chemical.

8. I am unable to accept this argument for more than one reason. One, we are required to construe the word 'chemical' as used, not in a book of science, but in a notification issued under the Sales Tax Act. One of the primary purposes of modern science is simplicity in the formulation of the laws governing nature. This simplicity finds expres