K.N.Misra, J. - (1.) The opposite party-assessee carries on business of manufacturing and selling, among other items, catguts-sutures. For the assessment year 1973-74 he disclosed his turnover at Rs. 3,82,405.27, which was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, by the order dated 3rd March, 1975, passed under Rule 41(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules and a tax at 3 per cent was levied on this turnover. Later on it transpired that the turnover had been assessed at a lower rate and the additional tax had not been assessed at all. Therefore, proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, for short "the Act", were initiated. In the original assessment the said catguts-sutures were assessed at 3 per cent treating the aforesaid goods as falling under the category of medicine and pharmaceutical preparations". In the assessment order dated 26th November, 1977, passed under Section 21 of the Act, these goods were treated as surgical goods taxable at the rate of 7 per cent as unclassified items with effect from 1st December, 1973, and at 4 per cent prior to that date, and additional tax was also assessed. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee had disclosed his turnover at Rs. 3,04,306.57 and vide order dated 3rd March, 1975, passed under Rule 41(7) of the Rules, the tax at the rate of 3 per cent was levied on the turnover in respect of the said goods, "catguts-sutures". Subsequently, proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 26th November, 1977, the said items were treated as surgical goods taxable at 7 per cent as unclassified items with effect from 1st December, 1973, and at 4 per cent prior to that date and the additional tax was also assessed. Similarly, in the assessment year 1975-76 the assessee had disclosed a turnover of Rs. 4,47,740.35. It was, however, not accepted and the Sales Tax Officer by order dated 3rd March, 1975, passed under Rule 41(7) of the Rules determined the turnover at Rs. 4,70,000. The tax was assessed at 6 per cent (5 per cent tax plus 1 per cent additional tax), treating the aforesaid goods as falling in the category of "medicine and pharmaceutical preparations". Subsequently, proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 4th November, 1977, these goods were treated to be surgical goods, taxable at 7 per cent as unclassified items with effect from 1st December, 1973, and at 4 per cent prior to that date. The rate of tax was enhanced accordingly. Against the above assessment orders, the assessee filed three appeals under Section 9 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Lucknow. He also preferred an appeal against the order passed under Rule 41 in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 by which the return submitted was not accepted and the assessment was made at the enhanced turnover referred to above. All these appeals were heard and allowed by a common judgment and order dated 19th February, 1979, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. It was held that the catguts-sutures were covered under the category of medicine and pharmaceutical preparations". The assessment order passed under Section 21 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid three years was annulled and the tax assessed at the aforesaid enhanced rate was set aside. The account books in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 were also accepted and the turnover submitted by the assessee was accepted and the tax assessed at the enhanced turnover was reduced. Aggrieved by this order the department preferred four revisions which were heard and dismissed by the common judgment and order dated 7th May, 1980, passed by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Lucknow.
(2.) It was urged on behalf of the revisionists before the said revisional authority that the learned lower appellate authority erred in accepting the turnover submitted by the assessee for the year 1975-76. It was further urged that the catguts-sutures have been wrongly held to fall within the category of "medicine and pharmaceutical preparations". These goods, therefore deserve to be assessed as unclassified items. Both these arguments were repelled by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. These orders have been challenged in the present revision.
(3.) As a common question of law is involved in these revisions the same were heard together and are being decided by the common judgment and order.;