Judgment :- 1. In all these revisions, the common question is whether sprayer is an agricultural implement. Inasmuch as it is being used for prevention of pests, it could only be considered as an agricultural implement. The Government Pleader submitted that it was not one of the items included in the Circular issued by the Board of Revenue, enumerating agricultural implements. We do not think that, even assuming that such a circular, stated to have been issued by the Board of Revenue has any statutory backing or force of law, such enumeration of items which could be regarded as agricultural implements could be exhaustive so as not to allow the inclusion of any other items within that term. In Commissioner of Sales-tax v. Bishram Tiwari (1971 (28) STC. 485), the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that the intention of the Notification in question was to exempt all agricultural implements driven by human or animal power and to tax only those agricultural implements which are worked otherwise than by human or animal power, and therefore agricultural sprayers are exempt from sales-tax although they do not find a place in the list of articles mentioned therein. 2. In TRC. No. 22 of 1983, an additional point has been raised and that is, whether zinc sulphate is a chemical fertiliser. Inasmuch as under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, it is one of the items (item 37) mentioned in the schedule of fertilisers, it could not be considered otherwise. Accordingly, we dismiss all these revision cases. There will be no order as to costs.