Govind Mathur, C.J.

1. In a sales tax reference, a Single Bench of this Court in M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh reported in [1979 UPTC 1076] held that air-gun is capable to inflict bodily injuries, therefore, the same is covered by a Notification dated 23.03.1971 regarding arms and ammunitions.

2. The issue as to whether “air-gun” and “air-pistol” are to be taxed under entry 124 “Part A” of Schedule II as “toy excluding electronic toys” or has to be taxed “arms and ammunitions” vide entry 2 of Schedule IV came up in the instant sales/trade tax revision before a Single Bench of this Court. The Single Bench while considering the issue noticed in the judgment of this Court in M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad (supra), the definition of term “arms” as prescribed under Section 2(c) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1959”) and the judgments of Kerala High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court on the same print.

3. The Kerala High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Versus K. Mohammed reported in [1989] 74 STC 210 while disagreeing the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad (supra) arrived at a conclusion that the phrase “arms and ammunition” will not cover air-guns and pellets.

4. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Versus Pilababu Vishwanath Rao, MCC No. 113 of 1986; decided on 01.03.1990 after taking note of judgment in M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad (supra) held that the law laid down by Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad (supra) is not correct.

5. Looking to the conflicting views and by taking into consideration the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, learned Single Bench considered it appropriate to refer the matter for adjudication by a larger Bench with following questions:-

“(i) Whether the view taken by this Court in M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad (supra) lays down the correct law ?

(ii) Whether 'air-gun' and 'air pistol' be treated an item covered by taxing entry 'arms and ammunition' occurring in IVth Schedule at serial No. 2 of the Act or would fall in the entry 'toys including electronic toys'?”

6. The argument advanced on behalf of the revision-petitioner is that air-gun and air-pistol are toys used to fix the target by the player for recreation and, as such, no tax can be legally charged as the entry falls under Sr. No. 51 of Schedule I of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2008”). In alternative, it is submitted that air-gun and air-pistol at the most can be taxed at the rate of four per cent being falling within the category of “toys excluding electronic toys” as referred at Sr. No. 124, Part A, Schedule II appended with the Act, 2008. It is asserted that the law laid down in the case of M/s Agarwal Brothers, Faizabad (supra) does not lay down the correct law as the Court in that matter has not examined the purpose and use of designing and manufacturing air-guns and air-pistols. Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, to substantiate the contention, heavily relied upon the judgments of the Kerala High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred in preceding paragraphs.

7. Per contra, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General states that the terms “arms” and “ammunition” have not been defined under the Act, 2008, thus, it would be appropriate to accept their dictionary meaning, and, according to that, air-gun or air-pistol is a lethal weapon, hence, these are to be included with item referred at Sr. No. 2 Schedule IV appended to the Act, 2008. Learned Additional Advocate General has cited different dictionaries to substantiate the contention aforesaid.

8. Heard learned counsels and considered the issues referred to us from different angles.

9. The Act, 2008 is an act to provide for introducing Value A