JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the order dated July 18,1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Camp at Gorakhpur in Second Appeal No. 90 of 1991 for the assessment year 1987-88.
The opposite party deals in tractors, scooters, motor vehicles and three wheelers and parts thereof. The assessing authority for the assessment year 1986-87 accepted the disclosed sales but rejected certain claims of the dealer-opposite party. It imposed tax on the purchase of chassis and body made against form III-A and also on the sales of trailers. The dealer-opposite party had refuted its liability on the turnover of the aforesaid three items. The assessment order dated July 31, 1990 was modified and reversed by the first appellate authority by order dated October 26,1990 and the said order has been confirmed in second appeal by the Tribunal. The first question which has been raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is regarding the taxability of trailers. The assessing authority rejected the claim of total exemption on the purchase price of trailers. Taking the purchases price of trailers at Rs. 1,47,968 it assessed the taxable purchase price after adding expenses, etc., at Rs. 1,64,000 and levied tax at the rate of 10 per cent on the sale of trailers which was assessed to Rs. 1,83,068 after adding the profit at the rate of 12 per cent. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have recorded a finding that the trailer sold by the dealer is not an attachment with a motor vehicle. There are two competitive entries with regard to trailer. Notification No. ST-II-5784 dated September 7, 1981 vide, entry No. 43(2) components, parts and accessories of vehicles specified in sub-entry (1) above including...trailers adapted for use along with the said vehicles, other than such trailers as are predominantly used along with the any other vehicles is taxable at the rate of 10 per cent. In sub-entry (1) of entry No. 43 vehicles specified are motor vehicles including motor cars, motor taxi cabs, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor, scooters, etc,...but excluding tractors whether on wheels or on tracts.
2. The other notification is of the same date being Notification No. 5785. Entry No. 51 reads as follows:
3. The Tribunal has held that the trailer sold by the dealer is an attachment of tractor and is, thus, covered by the subsequent Notification No. 5785. The term "trailer" is of general nature and description. It means a thing which trails behind the vehicle. The dictionary meaning of the word "trailer" has been discussed Vikrama Engineering Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] 121 STC 385 (TNTST). The relevant portion is quoted below (page 387):
...The word 'trailer' has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as a vehicle towed by another. In other words, a trailer cannot move by itself. It has to be pulled by another moving vehicle.
It can be a motor car, a tractor or any other moving vehicle.
4. Under the notification dated July 5, 1982 only such trailers adapted for use along with the vehicles mentioned in sub-entry (1) of entry No. 43 are taxable at the rate of 10 per cent. It may be noticed here that the tractor has been excluded from sub-entry (1) of entry 43. The finding in the present case is that the trailers sold by the dealer-opposite party were meant as attachment with the tractors only. In view of this factual aspect I find that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in holding that the trailers sold by the dealer-opposite party are covered by entry No. 51 of the Notification No. 5785 and are, thus, taxable at the rate of 6 per cent on the point of manufacturer or importer.
5. It is useful to refer to similar entries under the earlier notifications and the interpretation given by this court. The entry in notification dated February 10, 1972 reads as follows:
Entry No. 109.--Tractors and parts, accessories and attachments thereof; other than tyres and tubes.
The entry in the subsequent notification which is dated 7th December, 1979, is to the following effect:
96-A. Trailers of all kinds.
6. A question arose before this Court as to which of the two notifications apply to the tractor trolley. The Sales Tax Tribunal proceeded with the assumption that the notification dated December 7, 1979 will be applicable. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Abdul Hakim [1987] UPTC 419 held that the tractor trolley is included in the comprehensive notification dated February 10, 1972, manufactured by the assessee. It was pointed out that the subsequent notification had no application to tractor trolley in asmuch as there is a clear distinction between the trolley and trailer. This judgment was followed by another learned single Judge in the case of New Tek Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] UPTC 420. Entry No. 109 of the notification dated February 10, 1972 is strikingly similar to entry No. 51 of Notification No. 5785 imposing rate of tax at six per cent. Therefore it is established that the consistent view of this Court has been that the earlier entry No. 109 and the present entry No. 51 are comprehensive enough to include tractor trolleys in them.
7. The next point is regarding the liability of purchase tax on the purchase of chassis of three wheelers and its body. The dealer disclosed the purchase of three wheelers chassis at Rs. 7,67,985.78. Similarly it disclosed the purchase of three wheelers body at Rs. 1,44,034. It has not accepted any tax liability on these purchases, although the dealer-opposite party avoided the payment of purchase tax by issuing form III-A. The purchase tax was imposed by the assessing authority on the footing that the chassis and body of three wheelers were not sold in the same form and condition which is a condition for claiming exemption from the payment of purchase tax. This part of the order has been set aside by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal has also agreed with the first appellate authority on the supposition that by mounting of body on the chassis the dealer does not become a manufacturer of a motor vehicle. The first appellate authority has placed reliance upon Notification No. S.T.-II-6606 dated December 5, 1984. Entry No. 43(b) of the said notification reads as follows:
(b) Motor vehicles including the motor cars other than those specified in sub-item (a) above, motor taxi cabs,...jeeps, station wagons and chassis of motor vehicles and bodies or tankers or motor caravans, built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles, but excluding tractors whether on wheels or on tract. Tax is on the point of sale by dealer to consumer...at 10 per cent.
8. The above entry is a comprehensive entry and includes the motor vehicles, chassis, bodies, tankers built or meant for mounting on chassis. It was argued by the dealer that the intention of the Legislature is clear that the chassis and bodies built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles have been treated alike. But the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh has held otherwise which reads as follows:
...that the same commodity at different stages could be treated and taxed as commercially different articles. In A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. v. State of Madras , this Court held that 'hides and skins in the untanned condition are undoubtedly different as Articles of merchandise than tanned hides and skins' and pointed out that 'the fact that certain Articles are mentioned under the same heading in a statute or the Constitution, does not mean that they all constitute one commodity.' We may also refer to the decisions in Jagannath v. Union of India , where tobacco in the whole leaf and tobacco in the broken leaf were treated as two different commodities, East India Tobacco Co. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh , where Virginia tobacco and country tobacco were treated as two different commodities, and T.G. Venkataraman v. State of Madras cane jaggery and palm jaggery were treated as two different commodities.
9. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is by a Constitution Bench consisting of five honourable judges.
10. In view of the above it cannot be said that the chassis of a motor vehicle and motor vehicle with body mounted over it are commercially the same thing. The mention of bodies, chassis of motor vehicle in the same entry does not mean, as held above that they all constitute one commodity. The dealer-opposite party made the purchases of body and chassis separately from different persons by issuing form III-A meaning thereby it undertook to resell them in the same form and condition. Having failed to do so, the liability to purchase tax on the purchases of body and chassis, under Section 3AAAA of the Act is clearly attracted.
11. In view of the above the revision is partly allowed, as indicated above. The Tribunal to pass the consequential order under Section 11(8) of the Act.