S. R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions the petitioners who are dealers in cycles, cycle parts and accessories, have challenged the proposition notices issued by the assessing authorities proposing to tax the sale turnover in "cycle locks" under entry 150 of the Second Schedule to the karnataka Sales Tax Act ("the Act" for short ). The petitioners have also challenged the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, that cycle locks are taxable under entry 150 of the Second Schedule at 10 per cent as a lock falling under the said entry, which reads as follows : "all kinds of padlocks and locks". ( 2 ) A brief legislative history relating to the levy of tax on the sale of cycle locks under the Act is necessary to be stated in order to properly appreciate the petitioners' case and decide the point in controversy. ( 3 ) ENTRY 14 of the Second Schedule to the Act, as was found in the Act right from the inception, as inserted by the Act 25 of 1957, read as follows : "14. Bicycles, tandem cycles and cycle combinations. " ( 4 ) THIS entry was substituted by Act 31 of 1958, and the substituted entry read as follows : "bicycles, tandem cycles (cycle combinations and parts and accessories and tyres and tubes thereof ). " ( 5 ) BY Act 9 of 1970, perambulators, children's tricycles and similar articles were also included in the said entry. ( 6 ) BY Act 14 of 1980 item 14 of the Second Schedule was omitted and the entire entry was shifted to Fifth Schedule and inserted as entry 44 under which is enumerated, the goods exempted from tax under section 8. ( 7 ) BY Act 14 of 1987 item 44 in the Fifth Schedule was omitted and item 14 was reintroduced and the said entry continued thereafter without undergoing any change. ( 8 ) THE petitioners' case is that cycle locks were being treated as "accessories" to cycles right from 1958 when the parts and accessories of cycles were inserted in entry 14 by Act 31 of 1958, which was the earliest enactment relating to cycle locks in the Sales Tax Act. ( 8 ) THE petitioners' case is that cycle locks were being treated as "accessories" to cycles right from 1958 when the parts and accessories of cycles were inserted in entry 14 by Act 31 of 1958, which was the earliest enactment relating to cycle locks in the Sales Tax Act. The argument that is advanced on the basis of this factual position is that the tax on cycle locks from 1958 onwards was levied treating as an accessory to cycles and the department continued to tax it along with the cycles treating as an accessory of the cycle till 16th April, 1980 when entry 14 in the Second schedule was omitted with effect from 17th April, 1980 from which day the sale of "cycle parts and accessories thereof" came to be exempted from the levy of tax on its being inserted in the fifth Schedule. Again by Act 14 of 1987 item 44 of the Fifth Schedule was omitted with effect from 2nd April, 1987 and item 14 in the Second Schedule was reintroduced in the Act reviving the levy as before : "14. Bicycles, tandem cycles, cycle combinations and parts and accessories and tyres and tubes thereof, perambulators, children's bicycles and similar articles. " ( 9 ) THIS is the undisputed position as to the law relating to levy of tax on cycle locks till 17th november, 1983 when entry 150 was inserted in the Second Schedule by Act 23 of 1983 when the Commissioner issued the circular bearing No. CLR. C. R. 240/87-88 dated 18th June, 1987 published in the Commercial Tax Bulletin for the quarter ending 31st March, 1987 and 30th june, 1987 as circular No. 2/87-88. This circular was issued by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 3a of the Act for the guidance of the officers of the department and for the information of the assessees. Subsequent to the issue of the circular, the proposition notices impugned in these writ petitions were issued to the petitioners, who are dealers in cycles, its parts and accessories, proposing to tax their turnover in cycle locks under entry 150 of the second Schedule. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said circular and the proposition notices, have approached this Court under article 226 for necessary relief and declaration by this court. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said circular and the proposition notices, have approached this Court under article 226 for necessary relief and declaration by this court. ( 10 ) THE petitioners' case is that cycle locks were being treated as accessories to cycles right from 1958 and the sale turnover in cycle locks continued to be taxed along with the turnover in cycles, its parts and accessories till 16th April, 1980 when item 14 was omitted and exempted from tax. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, keeping in view the legislative history and the law relating to the levy of tax on cycles, its parts and accessories, vis-a-vis the cycle locks, as set out above, the contention of the parties has to be examined in the light of the decided cases relied upon by both sides. ( 12 ) IT is the argument of Sri B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that cycle locks can never be classified along with "all kinds of padlocks and locks" and they have to be understood and treated as accessories to cycles only and taxed under 14 of the Second Schedule even after the insertion of entry 150. It is also argued that cycle locks have all along been taxed as accessories to cycles and the insertion of entry 150 with effect from 18th November, 1983, for the first time, should not make any difference so far as the cycle locks are concerned having regard to the incontrovertible fact that the department itself treated the cycle locks as accessories of cycles. The other argument which is advanced, with some emphasis, is based on the ratio decidendi contained in several decisions on this point. ( 13 ) IT is argued by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that cycle locks are properly brought to tax under entry 150 after the said entry was introduced, for the first time, with effect from 18th November, 1983 and the cycle locks satisfy the description of the goods in entry 150, "all kinds of padlocks and locks". It is argued further by the learned Government pleader that this entry 150 being a specific entry should apply to cycle locks from 18th november, 1983 and the Commissioner's circular is, therefore, justified as giving the correct guidance both for the assessees as well as the assessing officers. It is argued further by the learned Government pleader that this entry 150 being a specific entry should apply to cycle locks from 18th november, 1983 and the Commissioner's circular is, therefore, justified as giving the correct guidance both for the assessees as well as the assessing officers. He has also relied upon a few decisions of this Court and other High Court in which is explained, "what is an accessory". ( 14 ) THE question that, therefore, arises for decisions on the arguments of both sides is : "whether, the cycle locks are exigible to levy under entry 14 or under entry 150 of the Second schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ?" ( 15 ) THERE are several aspects on this question which arise for consideration on the arguments advanced by both the parties. The argument of the petitioners is that the department has treated the cycle locks for more than 25 years as accessories of cycles and taxed them as such and this assertion of fact made by the petitioners who are dealers exclusively in bicycles, its parts and accessories, is not controverted by the department. ( 16 ) THE second argument is that cycle locks covered by the specific entry 14, namely, "bicycle parts and accessories thereof" and that therefore, they cannot be taxed under the general entry 150, "all kinds of padlocks and locks". ( 17 ) NEXTLY, it is contended that applying the common parlance theory and interpretation, cycle locks are always sold by dealers in cycles and its parts and they are specifically designed for use in cycles as cycle lock only and is, therefore, not meant to be used as an ordinary padlock or lock which is used for other purposes. ( 18 ) SRI Gandhi has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention : 1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Kannika Cycle Stores [1983] 53 STC 429 (Mad. ). Mirrors sold by an assessee, a dealer in cycles and not in glassware, for use as a rear view mirror to be fitted into cycles, were held to be an accessory to cycle and taxable as such. State of Tamil Nadu v. Kannika Cycle Stores [1983] 53 STC 429 (Mad. ). Mirrors sold by an assessee, a dealer in cycles and not in glassware, for use as a rear view mirror to be fitted into cycles, were held to be an accessory to cycle and taxable as such. The Madras High Court applied the principle laid down in Yacub Hussain v. State of Tamil nadu [1980] 46 STC 470 (Mad.), in which it was held that the purpose for which the commodity is used should be a guiding factor to determine its character. 2. Choudhry Bros. v. State of A. P. [1979] 43 STC 480 (AP ). Fare meters fixed in auto-rickshaws and motor vehicles were held to fall within the meaning of "accessories" of motor vehicles. Their Lordships held that the predominant or ordinary use, for which the articles is put, should be the guiding factor. Their Lordships followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR1976 SC 1418 , (1976 )2 SCC273 , [1976 ]3 SCR561 , [1976 ]37 stc378 (SC ), 1976 (8 )UJ314 (SC ). ( 19 ) SRI Gandhi strongly relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atul Glass industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR1986 SC 1730 , 1986 (10 )ECC1 (SC ), 1986 (25 )ELT473 (SC ), 1986 (2 )SCALE15 , (1986 )3 SCC480 , [1986 ]3 SCR126 , [1986 ]63 STC322 (SC ). The question that arose in the said decision was, whether glass mirrors and glass screens fitted in motor vehicles fall under tariff item 23a (4) or tariff item 34a or tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Act. ( 20 ) TARIFF item 23 related to glass and glassware. By tariff item 23a (4), "other glass and glasswares" was substituted. Tariff item 34a deals with motor vehicles parts related to parts and accessories not elsewhere specified. ( 21 ) TARIFF item 68 is the residuary item. Their Lordships were answering the question whether the glass mirrors and glass screens were taxable as parts and accessories of motor vehicles or as glass or glasswares. Tariff item 34a deals with motor vehicles parts related to parts and accessories not elsewhere specified. ( 21 ) TARIFF item 68 is the residuary item. Their Lordships were answering the question whether the glass mirrors and glass screens were taxable as parts and accessories of motor vehicles or as glass or glasswares. It was held, item 34a was a special entry, and item 23a (4) is a general entry, and taking into consideration the functional character of the glass mirrors and wind screens and having regard to the common experience that the two articles are associated and identified as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, the Supreme Court held, it was classifiable only under item 34a, and not under item 23a (4 ). ( 22 ) IN Annapurna Carbon Industries' case AIR1976 SC 1418 , (1976 )2 scc273 , [1976 ]3 SCR561 , [1976 ]37 STC378 (SC ), 1976 (8 )UJ314 (SC ), the Supreme court was interpreting whether arc carbons were classifiable as parts and accessories of cinematographic equipment including projectors, etc. The Supreme Court held, that arc carbon, though can be used for other purposes like signalling, searchlight, etc. , having regard to its predominant use as "cinema arc carbons", it was rightly taxed under entry 4 of the First Schedule along with cinematograph equipment such as projectors, etc. ( 23 ) THE Supreme Court further observed, that the predominant or general use of an article should be the deciding factor. ( 24 ) SRI Dattu, the learned Government Pleader has sought to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the petitioners' counsel. His argument is that the entry 150 is a specific entry under which is classified all kinds of padlocks and locks and the cycle locks also fall under the said entry for purposes of levy of tax under the Act subsequent to the insertion of the said entry by Act 23 of 1983. ( 25 ) THE Commissioner's circular is, therefore, sought to be justified on the basis of the amendment to the Act and also relying on the following decisions of this Court and other High courts explaining, "what is an accessory". (i) N. A. V. Naidu v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1970] 25 STC 381 (Mys ). It was held in that decision that printing types cannot be classed as accessories to the printing machinery. (i) N. A. V. Naidu v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1970] 25 STC 381 (Mys ). It was held in that decision that printing types cannot be classed as accessories to the printing machinery. This Court held, in order to constitute an article an accessory to a machinery, the article or device must be one that adds to the convenience or effectiveness of the main machinery, but is not essential. Their Lordships also observed that a speedometer in a motor cycle is an example of an accessory to a motor cycle. (ii) State of Mysore v. Kores (India) Ltd. [1970] 26 STC 87 (Mys ). This Court held that typewriter ribbon is not an essential part of a typewriter and therefore not taxable under entry 18 of the Second Schedule, which deals with typewriter, calculating machines, etc. , and parts thereof. (iii) K. B. Dani v. State of Karnataka ILR1979 KAR 2315 , 1979 (2 ) Karlj286 , [1979 ]44 STC276 (Kar ). ( 26 ) HELD, a tractor-trailer is neither a "machinery" nor a part or an "accessory" of a machinery and, therefore, not taxable under item No. 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax act. Tractor-trailer required for use of a tractor cannot be an accessory to a tractor. ( 27 ) THE Supreme Court, in Atul Glass Industries' case AIR1986 SC 1730 , 1986 (10 )ECC1 (SC ), 1986 (25 )ELT473 (SC ), 1986 (2 )SCALE15 , (1986 )3 SCC480 , [1986 ]3 SCR126 , [1986 ]63 STC322 (SC ), laid down the test, which is commonly applied in cases where controversy as to classification and levy arises, thus : "how is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product ? That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does not contain any definition. It is generally by its functional character that a product is so identified. " ( 28 ) THE Supreme Court held, that glass mirrors cannot be classified "as other glass and glassware" under tariff item 23a (4) and falls under residuary item 68. That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does not contain any definition. It is generally by its functional character that a product is so identified. " ( 28 ) THE Supreme Court held, that glass mirrors cannot be classified "as other glass and glassware" under tariff item 23a (4) and falls under residuary item 68. ( 29 ) IN the light of the above discussion, and the interpretation that is called for, the factors that need to be considered are these : (i) the consistent view taken by the department for over 25 years in taxing the cycle locks as accessories to cycles; (ii) how the cycle locks are understood in common parlance and by the trade and consumers ? (a) cycle locks being associated and identified as accessories to cycles; (b) their predominant use and functional character; (iii) whether, the insertion of entry 150 in the Second Schedule makes any difference as to the taxability of cycle locks under entry 14 ? ( 30 ) THE clarification issued by the Commissioner as per annexure-B is obviously based on the insertion of entry 150 in the Second Schedule with effect from 18th November, 1983. Under the said entry, "all kinds of padlocks and locks" are brought to tax at single point. But the mere insertion of this entry should not make any difference as to the taxability of cycle locks under entry 14 treating them as accessories of bicycle. ( 31 ) I have already taken the view that cycle locks cannot be classified along with "all kinds of padlocks and locks" nor can they be understood as padlocks and locks, the use of which is altogether different. ( 32 ) IN all the decisions referred to by the learned Government Pleader, both this Court and other high Courts were dealing with accessories in relation to other goods, such as printing machinery, typewriter, tractor-trailer, etc. Therefore, the test whether cycle locks should be treated as accessories of bicycles turn on the interpretation to be given to entry 14, vis-a-vis entry 150. Therefore, the test whether cycle locks should be treated as accessories of bicycles turn on the interpretation to be given to entry 14, vis-a-vis entry 150. For my view in this regard expressed in this order, I derive support from the decisions of the supreme Court in Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR1986 SC 1730 , 1986 (10 )ECC1 (SC ), 1986 (25 )ELT473 (SC ), 1986 (2 )SCALE15 , (1986 )3 SCC480 , [1986 ]3 SCR126 , [1986 ]63 STC322 (SC ) and annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1976] 37 STC 378. ( 33 ) IN the result, the petitions should succeed, and I order accordingly and declare that the cycle locks should be taxed under entry 14 of the Second Schedule. per