R.R. Rastogi, J.
1. This was a reference under Section 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. In view of the U. P. Taxation Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1978, it shall now be treated as revision under Section 11(1) of the Act.
2. The short question for consideration in this revision is as to whether bhathi (air blowing instrument) falls within the category of machinery taxable at 6 per cent under Notification . No. ST-7098/X dated 1st October, 1965, or is to be treated as an unclassified item. The assessee is a dealer in hardware, chemicals, etc., and the assessment year involved is 1968-69. In respect of sales of bhathi the assessee claimed that the same could not be treated as machinery and tax on the sales of the same was to be charged at 2 per cent and not at 6 per cent. This contention was not accepted by the departmental authorities, but was accepted by the Additional Judge, Sales Tax (Revisions), relying on the orders made by the revising authority in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71.
3. After hearing counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the view taken by the revising authority is not correct. A Full Bench of this Court in Engineering Traders v. State of U.P. 1973 U.P.T.C. 91 (F.B.), where the question was whether pumping sets were machinery within the purview of the notification dated 1st October, 1965, observed:
The notification reproduced above relates to machinery and its spare parts. Machinery, according to dictionary meaning, means 'a machine in general or a functioning unit'. The word 'machine' is a well-known term and according to Webster's Dictionary means 'an instrument (as a lever) designed to transmit and modify the application of power, force and motion'. Thus machinery, in generic sense, would include all appliances and instruments whereby energy or force is transmitted and transformed from one point to another. In that sense it will include simple appliance like a lever to complicated machinery employed in mills and factories.
4. The Full Bench held that the pumping sets were machinery within the purview of the aforesaid notification, but, because they fell within the category of agricultural implements, they were not taxable under the aforesaid notification.
5. A similar question came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Chandok Traders, Allahabad 1973 U.P.T.C. 484, where the question referred to the High Court was whether hair clipper was a machinery. The Bench, following the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench, held that hair clipper is undoubtedly an instrument which transmits force from one point to another and would be covered by the notification in question provided that is not made subject to tax under any other notification issued under Section 3-A. No such notification had been brought to the notice of the court and hence it was held that hair clippers would be taxable under the aforesaid notification dated 1st October, 1965.
6. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ramesh Prasad Batuk Prasad 1974 U.P.T.C. 535, again this notification came up for consideration and the question referred was whether sewai-ki-machine could be treated as machinery taxable at 6 per cent in view of the aforesaid notification. The view taken by the Bench was that sewai-ki-machine was machinery and was taxable at 6 per cent. Similar view was taken in Jackard Machinery Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1974 U.P.T.C. 626, where handloom kargha and its parts were held to be machinery and machinery parts liable to be taxed as such under Notification No. ST-7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965.
7. In view of these decisions air blowing instrument falls within the category of a machinery because it is an instrument designed to transmit and modify the application of power, force and motion. It transmits energy or force from one point to another. No doubt, it is a simple appliance but none the less comes within the category of machinery within the purview of the notification dated 1st October, 1965, and the sales thereof would attract tax at 6 per cent and not at 2 per cent. The view taken by the learned revising authority was, thus, erroneous in law and cannot be sustained.
8. The revision is hence allowed with Rs, 200 as costs.