J. S. VERMA, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. THIS matter was initially a reference made to this Court prior to the above amendment for deciding the following questions of law : (1) Whether, on a proper interpretation of entry No. 8 of Notification No. F. 5 (16)FD (CT)/69-2 dated 8th March, 1969, the Commercial Taxes Officer was justified in bifurcating the sale of tractors into that of tractor and other parts fitted therein and levying tax at 7 per cent ? (2) Whether, on the proper interpretation of the nature of the transactions, towing hooks, tractor-hoods, mudguard-sheets, front wheel weights, rear wheel weights, telescopic axles, seat cushions, hour meters, etc. , fitted with the tractors can be taxed at the concessional rate of 2 per cent ?
(2.) THE material facts are these : THE assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tractors, its spare parts and accessories. THE relevant period of assessment in the present case is 1970-71, ending on 31st March, 1971. During this period the assessee sold tractors as a single unit fitted with items, such as towing hooks, tractor-hoods and mudguard-sheets, etc. , and the bill was prepared accordingly showing the price of the tractor as a whole and not of these items separately. In other words, these items were shown as parts of the tractor, which were sold as a single unit. THE question for decision by the assessing authority was, whether the sales tax was exigible at the rate of 2 per cent only in accordance with the entry No. 8 reading "tractors and spare parts thereof", or at the rate of 7 per cent according to entry No. 79 which was the residuary entry. THE assessing authority, the appellate authority and thereafter the Tribunal have all held against the assessee that sales tax is chargeable at the higher rate of 7 per cent on the taxable turnover worked out on this basis. Aggrieved by this view taken by the Tribunal, the assessee applied for a reference to this Court for decision of the above questions of law in accordance with the provisions of the Act existing prior to the amendment of 1984, which led to the reference of the above questions of law for decision by this Court. During the pendency of the reference, the Act has been amended to substitute a new section 15 in the principal Act providing for the remedy of a revision in place of a reference, and this is how this revision arises for decision of the above questions. Having heard both the sides, I am satisfied that this revision has to be allowed. The question really is, whether the aforesaid entry No. 8 providing for the tax at 2 per cent on transactions of sale of "tractors and spare parts thereof" is wide enough to cover the transactions in the present case. There is no other competing entry relied on by the department, and in case entry No. 8 does not apply then the only surviving entry which can be applied is the residuary entry No. 79. Obviously, the residuary entry has to be applied only if it is not possible to bring the transaction within the ambit of the specific entry No. 8 relating to "tractors and spare parts thereof". The statement of the case clearly mentions that the aforesaid items were sold as parts of the tractor, which were treated as one unit and not separate from the tractor. The items also are of a kind which are obviously used in a tractor. In such a situation, there is no reason why the transaction should not fall within the ambit of entry relating to "tractors and spare parts thereof" particularly when there is no competing specific entry providing for sale of accessories so as to require any distinction to be drawn between parts of a tractor and its accessories. Obviously, the residuary entry has to be resorted to only if it is not possible to bring the transaction within any of the specific entries, or in other words entry No. 8 in the present case, which is the only specific entry for this purpose. The nature of transaction also indicates that the contract was for sale of tractor inclusive of these items as parts thereof and not for sale of these items separately. This being so, there is no basis to split the sale transaction and bifurcate it into two parts, as has been done by the departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal. A Division Bench decision of this Court in [1987] 64 STC 372; (1986) 16 STL 139 (Raj) (Commercial Taxes Officer v. Lila Brothers) itself supports this conclusion by indicating that while dealing with a similar entry the department itself took the stand that spare parts which were supplied along with the tractor at the time of purchase of the tractor without charging for these items separately are treated as covered by the entry "tractors and spare parts thereof". There is thus no reason to accept the contrary stand taken by the department in the present case. From the result of the aforesaid discussion it follows that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that sales tax was chargeable at the rate of 7 per cent in accordance with the residuary entry No. 79 instead of at the rate of 2 per cent according to the aforesaid entry No. 8. The revision is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;