S.PARVATHA RAO, J. -
(1.)THIS tax revision case is preferred by the State questioning the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 829 of 1988 dated October 30, 1989, holding that the turnover relating to tarpaulins was not liable to be taxed and allowing the appeal of the assessee (respondent herein ). The question that arises for decision in this tax revision case is whether "cotton canvas" or "tarpaulin" which is waterproof cloth with the base as cloth sold by the assessee falls under "cotton fabrics" in item No. 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act" for short) and therefore exempt from tax under section 8 of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84.
(2.)THE Commercial Tax Officer, Tadipathri, assessed to tax the turnover of Rs. 15,54,958. 38 relating to the sales of tarpaulin effected by the assessee treating it as multi-point taxable goods. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, held that though the expression "cotton fabrics" in item No. 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act may include "tarpaulin cloth" in rolls, it did not include tarpaulin which was a finished product, and that finished tarpaulin was entirely a different product and in that view rejected the contention on behalf of the assessee that even though there was some work done on the processed canvas cloth, the cost of the work, namely, stitching the ends and eyeletting, would be very negligible and that, therefore it should be considered that tarpaulin was only processed canvas cloth. On further appeal, as already stated above, the Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee and held that the turnover of tarpaulin sales was not assessable to tax and allowed the appeal of the assessee relying on the decisions of Karnataka High Court in Bharat Textile and Proofing Industries v. Slate of Karnataka  71 STC 10 and of this Court in State of A. P. v. Goodyear India Ltd.  74 STC 47.
The learned Government Pleader contends that applying the user test, tarpaulin cannot fall under the expression "cotton fabrics". He submits that though cotton fabric might form the base for tarpaulin, the process to which the cotton fabric is subjected for the making of tarpaulin is such that there is change of the product as known to the market and therefore, it cannot be treated as "cotton fabric". He also submits that the use to which tarpaulin can he put is totally different to that of cotton fabric as commonly understood. He also submits that tarpaulin is made by cutting cotton canvas to size and by stitching the ends and also the eyes. In support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. East India Rubber Works  33 STC 399 and Jeewajee and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu  34 STC 4.
(3.)ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee relies on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Pokardas and Brothers v. State of Gujarat  51 STC 88 and of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Textile and Proofing Industries v. State of Karnataka  71 STC 10, as directly covering the question at issue. He also relies on the decision of this Court in State of A. P. v. Goodyear India Ltd,  74 STC 47, wherein also the expression "cotton fabrics" occurring in item No. 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act is considered and it is held that the said expression includes cotton fabrics subjected to the process of rubberising. He further contends that there is no difference between "cotton canvas" and "tarpaulin" and that cotton canvas does not undergo any change when it is cut to size with ends stitched and eyes made for tying it into position. In order to appreciate the rival arguments, it is necessary to refer to the said item No. 5 as it was during the relevant period. It reads as follows :
" 5. Cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics and woollen fabrics. " Explanation to the Fourth Schedule, to the extent it is relevant, provides that : " The expressions in items Nos. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shall have the same meanings assigned to them in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (Central Act 58 of 1957 ). " Section 2 (c) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 ("the Additional Duties Act" for short) as in force in 1983-84 reads as follows : " the words and expressions 'sugar', 'tobacco', 'cotton fabrics', 'silk fabrics', 'woollen fabrics' and 'man-made fabrics' shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in items Nos. 1, 4, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. "
During the period 1983-84, "cotton fabrics" was defined in item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ("the Central Excises Act" for short) in the following manner :
" 19. Cotton fabrics : 'cotton fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chaddars, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counter-panes, table-cloths, embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs and fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials and fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks, if (i) in such fabrics cotton predominates in weight, or (ii) such fabrics contain more than 40 per cent by weight of cotton and 50 per cent or more by weight of non-cellulosic fibres or yarn or both. Provided that in the case of embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs, fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials, and fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks, such predominance or percentages, as the case may be, shall be in relation to the base fabrics which are embroidered or impregnated, coated or laminated or covered, as the case may be. "