R. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision raises an interesting question with regard to the interpretation of provisions of Section 8 (2a) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with the provisions of the U. P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the motor Spirit Act. Admittedly the assessee was manufacturer of alcohol. As regards the quantum, there is no dispute between the parties. ( 2 ) THE argument raised on behalf of the assessee is that since the assessee is a manufacturer of alcohol and the Motor Spirit Act attracts tax at the time of first purchase only there is no liability on the assessee to pay tax on the inter-State sale of alcohol. In this view of the matter for the purpose of Section 8 (2a) of the Central Sales Tax Act the rate of tax under the Motor Spirit Act shall be nil and consequently there will be no liability under the Central Sales Tax Act also. The submission further proceeds to say that the Sales Tax Tribunal is in error in holding that although there is no liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act but since the aforesaid Motor spirit Act is a taxing statute and under the said statute there is a tax on the purchase of alcohol, therefore, it cannot be held that the assessee was exempted from the tax for the purposes of section 8 (2a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. By virtue of Section 3 (1), Clause (c), of the said Act tax is leviable on alcohol at the point of first purchase in the State at the rate mentioned in the said Sub-section. The question that falls for consideration, therefore, is as to whether in view of the aforesaid provision under the Motor Spirit Act it can be said that the dealer was exempt from the tax, generally and that in the present case tax was nil for the purpose of Section 8 (2a) of the central Sales Tax Act. The aforesaid argument on behalf of the dealer is sought to be refuted by the learned standing counsel. He contends that if the provisions of Section 8 (2a) are interpreted the result will be the same as held by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The aforesaid argument on behalf of the dealer is sought to be refuted by the learned standing counsel. He contends that if the provisions of Section 8 (2a) are interpreted the result will be the same as held by the Sales Tax Tribunal. ( 3 ) SECTION 8 (2a) of the Central Sales Tax Act read as under : notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1a) of Section 6 or Sub-section (1) or clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. ( 4 ) A very close scrutiny of the aforesaid Act disclosed that it is manifest that tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act by a dealer on his turnover relates to the sale of any goods, the purchase or sale of which is under the sales tax law liable at the appropriate stage or exempt from tax generally. Thus in my opinion from a reading of the aforesaid provision the emphasis is on the goods and not on the sales tax law of the appropriate State and the Tribunal is clearly in error in interpreting the aforesaid provision to the contrary. What remains to be examined is the interpretation of the words "exempt from tax generally". Explanation to Section 8 (2a)contemplates three circumstances to which fiction extends for interpretation of the aforesaid words. What remains to be examined is the interpretation of the words "exempt from tax generally". Explanation to Section 8 (2a)contemplates three circumstances to which fiction extends for interpretation of the aforesaid words. The same are (a) if the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances, (b) or is exempt under the aforesaid conditions or (c) tax is levied at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods. I find that in the present case liability to tax which is contemplated under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (c) Of the Motor spirit Act, is neither under any of the aforesaid circumstance as there are no circumstances specified except the point at which tax is leviable nor any conditions are attached to the aforesaid levy nor can it be said that tax is levied at some specified stage. As regards the last portion of the explanation which says otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods will not be applicable because the present is a case of manufacture of goods and the law does not provide exemption of goods with reference to the turnover of the goods. Hence this circumstance also does not arise in the present case. Therefore, the conclusion, in my opinion is that the present case is also not hit by the explanation to the aforesaid Section 8 (2a) of the Central Sales Tax act. ( 5 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs and it is held that the dealer had no liability to pay any Central sales tax. .