Kirpal, J. - (1.) The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of rims of cycles. The Assessing Officer, under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, made provisional assessment treating the rims as cycle parts and taxed the same under the said Act @ 8%. Before the Assessing Officer, the contention of the appellant was that cycle rims were declared goods under clause (xiv) of sub-section (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and according to Section 15 of the Act the tax payable under the said law in respect of any sale or purchase of declared goods inside the State could not exceed 4% of the sale or purchase price thereof and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage. The Assessing Officer, however, made provisional assessment under the U. P. Sales Tax Act treating these rims as cycle parts @ 8% separately for each month from June, 1990 to March, 1991. The appellant then filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the appellant's contention and came to the conclusion that the rims manufactured by the appellant could not be taxed at the rate higher than 4%. The respondent than filed appeal to the Tribunal which reversed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the decision of the Assessing Officer.
(2.) The appellant then filed revision petitions before the Allahabad High Court. In support of its contention that the rim manufactured by it was a declared goods, it placed reliance on a decision of a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Ashok Tyres, (1988) 68 STC 123 wherein it was held that the cycle rim came within the ambit of 'wheel' and was a declared goods. The single Judge of the Allahabad High Court from which the appeal arises, while dissenting from the aforesaid judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, came to the conclusion that a rim and a wheel are different things and a rim could become a wheel only by using spokes, hub and/or other things. The rim manufactured by the appellant, it was held, was not capable of revolving by itself and, therefore, it could not be called a wheel. The High Court, therefore, concluded that cycle rim was not commercially known as 'wheel' and, therefore, could be taxed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act @ 8% and it was not a declared goods.
(3.) The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether a cycle rim is a declared goods or not. Sub-clause (xiv) of sub-section (iv) of Section 14 of the Act reads as follows: "It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce: (iv) iron and steel, that its to say,- (xiv) wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets". ;