S. K. Kapnr ( 1 ) THIS reference made to thiscourt by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under section 21 of the Bengalfinance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, arises in the following circumstances. The firm Kewalkishan Om parkash (hereafter REFERRED TO as the assossee) is adealer in cloth. During the assessment year 1954-55 its total turnoverwas Rs. 15. 836/4. 00. In this year the assessee paid Rs. 10/4. 00as stitchingcharges to a tailor for stitching some quilts, mattresses and petticoats. From this it was deduced that the assessce sold stitched garments andquilts as well of a very nominal value. It was contended on behalf of theassessee before the authorities that since its turnover with respect to goodsmanufactured or produced for sale was less than Rs. 10,090. 00 clause (a) ofsub-section (5) of section 4 was not applicable to the assesses and itcould be taxed only under clause (e) of sub-section (5) of section 4, as itthen stood, if its turnover was Rs. 30,000. 00or more. The Chief Commissioner took the view that since the assessce s turnover included the salesproceeds, though of a very small amount, of manufactured goods also theassessee was liable to tax under clause (a) of sub-section (5) of section 4. In other words he held that where the turnover of an assessee is comprisedpartly of manufactured goods, he would be liable to tax if his totalturnover is more than Rs. 10,000. 00even if the turnover with respect to themanufactured goods is very much lesser. The Chief Commissioner, however, REFERRED TO this Court the question of law as to whether "in thepresent case the dealer s turnover should be determined under sub-clause (a) or (e) of sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax)Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi. ( 2 ) MR. Yogeshwer Dayal, the learned counsel for the assessee,contends that clause (a) of sub-section (5) of section 4 is applicable onlyif the turnover with respect to the goods imported for sale into the Stateof Delhi or manufactured or produced for sale is Rs. 10,000. 00or more. According to the learned counsel since in this case the turnover of manufactured goods was less than Rs. 10,000. 00, clause (a) of sub-section (5)of section 4 was not applicable and the assessee could be taxed underclause (e) only if the turnover was more than Rs. 30. 000. 00. 10,000. 00or more. According to the learned counsel since in this case the turnover of manufactured goods was less than Rs. 10,000. 00, clause (a) of sub-section (5)of section 4 was not applicable and the assessee could be taxed underclause (e) only if the turnover was more than Rs. 30. 000. 00. Section 4 (1) and (5), as it stood at the relevant time, was as under :-"4 (1) With effect from such date as the Chief Commissioner may,by notification in the official Gazettee, appoint, being not earlier thanthirty days after the date of the said notification, every dealer whosegross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to paytax under this Act on all sales effected after the date so notified. (5) In this Act the expression "taxable quantum" means- (a) in relation to any dealer who imports for sale any goods intothe State of Delhi, or manufactures or produces for sale, 10,000. 00. rupees; or (b) in relation to particular classes of dealers not falling withinclause (a) such sum as may be prescribed ; or (e) in relation to any other dealer, 30,000 rupees. "mr. S. N. Shanker, the learned counsel for the State, on the otherhand contends that even where a small part of sale proceeds is representedby manufactured goods then clause (a) of sub-section (5) is applicable andif the total sale proceeds are more than Rs. 10,000. 00comprising both ofmanufactured goods or other goods the turnover becomes taxable. 4 We are in agreement with the submission of Mr. Yogeshwerdayal. Under sub-section (1) of section 4 only such dealers whose grossturnover exceeds the taxable quantum are liable to pay sales-tax- Fromthe definition of the expression "taxable quantum" in sub-section (5) ofsection 4 it is clear that clause (a) would apply only if the taxablequantum With respect to the goods imported or manufactured or producedfor sale is Rs. 10,000. 00or more. Where turnover with respect to such goodsis less than Rs. 10. 000. 00 then clause (e) of sub-section (5) of section 4would be applicable. This view is in accord with the decision of Nagpurhigh Court in Ayodhy aprasad Suklal v. The Crown, and of the judgmentof Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mahabir Prasad v. B. S. Gupta, Income-tax Officer, Indore, and another . 10. 000. 00 then clause (e) of sub-section (5) of section 4would be applicable. This view is in accord with the decision of Nagpurhigh Court in Ayodhy aprasad Suklal v. The Crown, and of the judgmentof Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mahabir Prasad v. B. S. Gupta, Income-tax Officer, Indore, and another . Sub-section (5) of section 4 creates threeclasses of dealers for the purposes of taxation- (1) those whose businessmainly is to import, manufacture or produce poods for sale and in theircase the taxable quantum with respect to such sales is fixed at Rs. 10,000. 00 (2) particular class of dealers not falling within above, the taxable quantumis left to be determined by rules and (3) other dealers whose taxablequantum is fixed at Rs 30. 000. 00. The tax is attracted only if in the firstclass of cases taxable quantum w,th respect to goods imported, manufactured or produced exceeds Rs. 10,000. 00. That, to our mind. appears to bethe plain construction of the section. Mr. Shanker seeks to distinguishthe Nagpur decision on the ground that the word "gross in sub-section (1) of section 4 does not appear in the corresponding provision in thenagpur Act. That, in our view, makes no difference. Taxable quantumhaving been defined the definition has to be incorporated in sub-section (1) of section 4. When so incorporated the presence of the word "gross" inthe earlier part of this section will make no difference. In this view ouranswer to the question referred is that the taxable turnover in this casehad fo be determined under clause (e) of sub-section (5) of section 4. Inthe circumstances, however, there will no order as to costs.