Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) SINCE the controversy involved in both the aforesaid revisions, being Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 1002 (for the assessment year 1994 -95) and Trade Tax Revision No. 164 of 2002( For the assessment year 1995 -96) is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgment and order treating the Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 1002 as a leading one.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel appearing for the State. The Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 2002 has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1994 -95 against the order of the Tribunal dated 8.2.2000. The questions of law referred to are hereunder: (1) Whether the insulating varnish which is used exclusively in electrical industry for strengthening the resistance of electrical motors and transformers etc. and has no other use, is liable to be taxed as an accessory to electrical goods under the Notification No. 5784, dated 31.7.1992 ? (2) Whether the Trade Tax Officer was justifying in passing the order under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in completely overlooking the other facts and materials on record, including the decisions of the Apex Court for upholding the order passed under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act ? (3) Whether the decision of this Hon'ble Court in S.T.R. No. 770 of 1997, decided on 22.9.1998 does not lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration ? (4) Whether the Notification No. 5784, dated 31.7.1992 having specifically included the accessories of electrical goods and equipments; hence in view of the clarification issued by the different State Government and in view of the common parlance meaning of the insulating varnish, it is not taxable under the general entry of "Paints & Varnishes" ?
(3.) THE proceedings arises under an application made by the department under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').;