JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by S. D. SHAH, J. - The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our decision on being moved by the applicant under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a narrow construction of the various entries in the different Schedules and scheme underlying, the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the two types of yarns sold by the applicant were not yarn within the meaning of entry 2 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, but were the goods sale of which was taxable at the rate applicable to the goods covered by entry 13 of Schedule III to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?" 2. In order to answer the question referred to us, it is necessary to refer to relevant facts : (i) The applicant, a registered dealer carried on business of purchase and resale of yarn, cotton, groundnuts, etc., at Gondal in Rajkot district. The applicant purchased two varieties of yarn from a selling dealer at Bombay and resold them to one dealer at Ahmedabad under sale bill No. 91 dated 25th January, 1978. The applicant thereafter filed an application under section 62 of the said Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad, for determination of tax payable on the said sale bill. (ii) The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, by judgment and order dated 13th June, 1978, held that the yarn in question covered by the said bill was made out of a mixture of 85 per cent of cotton or cotton yarn and 15 per cent of viscose yarn or viscose and part of it was made out of 80 per cent of cotton yarn and 20 per cent of viscose yarn. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, therefore, held that what the applicant sold was not "cotton yarn" covered by entry 2 of Schedule II, Part A to the said Act, but the same was covered by residuary entry 13 of the Schedule III to the said Act so as to be liable to pay sales tax at 5 per cent and general sales tax at 3 per cent, i.e., 8 per cent in all. (iii) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner of, Sales Tax, the applicant preferred appeal to the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, and by its judgment and order dated 9th November, 1979, the Tribunal confirmed the judgment and order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax that the yarn sold by the applicant was not cotton yarn within the meaning of entry 2 of Schedule II, Part A to the said Act. (iv) Dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal the applicant applied to the Tribunal for referring the question of law arising from its judgment and order under section 69 of the said Act, and the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for our decision. 3. The relevant entry being entry 2 of Schedule II, Part A, to the said Act runs as under : "2. Cotton yarn, but not including cotton yarn waste." Based on this entry the applicant submits that the yarn which was sold by it by sale bill was cotton yarn inasmuch as cotton component in the said yarn was 80 per cent to 85 per cent while the viscose content was between 15 per cent to 20 per cent. The predominant component being cotton the said yarn should be regarded as cotton yarn. The applicant further contends that at the relevant time, i.e., yarn which is admixture of cotton yarn and other man-made staple yarn or other synthetic yarn (sic). In the absence of any specific entry for blended yarn the test of predominant component should be applied, submits the applicant. In support of this submission Mr. P. G. Desai, learned advocate for the applicant relies upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Shri Akkamamba Textiles Ltd reported in [1990] 79 STC 357. Before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court the question was raised as to whether the cotton yarn in which the non-cotton component was 10 per cent can be described as cotton yarn within the meaning of entry 10 of Schedule III to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. The relevant entry 10 of A.P. General Sales Tax Act is exactly same to the entry 2 of the Gujarat Act. The relevant entry 10 of A.P. General Sales Tax Act is exactly same to the entry 2 of the Gujarat Act. While answering the said question the Division Bench of the A.P. High Court took into consideration the fact that at the relevant time there was no separate entry dealing with the blended cotton yarn. The A.P. High Court also took into consideration the fact that the Central Government had issued a statutory order called "The Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948", and under the said order as it stood in 1977 there was prohibition on manufacturing cotton yarn without using man-made cellulose and non-cellulose staple fibre, which shall in no case be less than 10 per cent of total fibre consumption of the manufacturer in a quarter. It is true that the A.P. High Court did not regard this factor as a conclusive factor for deciding the question posed before it. The Division Bench, in fact, found that absence of any entry for blended cotton yarn would require the court to apply the test of predominance, and if cotton predominant inasmuch it was 90 per cent in the case before the A.P. High Court and 80 per cent to 85 per cent before us the same should be regarded as cotton yarn. We may also note at this stage the scheme under which yarns of different varieties are taxed under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. A reference to Schedule II, Part A to the said Act as it stood then, would show that cotton yarn, silk yarn, wool yarn and staple fibre and staple fibre yarn, terylene fibre and terylene fibre yarn and other synthetic fibres and synthetic yarns were taxed at 4 paise in a rupee. It is also required to be seen that at the relevant time there was no entry in the said list dealing with the mixed or blended yarn. We cannot attribute any intention to the Legislature to tax such yarn at higher rate of 8 per cent to 10 per cent on their being mixed or blended yarn. The omission to provide specific rate of tax for mixed or blended yarn would justify the application of predominance test and such yarn would be classified as per the predominant component. The omission to provide specific rate of tax for mixed or blended yarn would justify the application of predominance test and such yarn would be classified as per the predominant component. In the case before us cotton component is 80 per cent to 85 per cent while viscose component is 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Merely because the viscose component is 15 per cent to 20 per cent there is no material on the basis of which we can say that the cotton yarn has ceased to exist or yarn that has come into existence has some different characteristic. We cannot say that the cotton yarn has lost its identity and characteristic as such because of mixing of 15 per cent to 20 per cent of viscose yarn. Thus, applying the test of predominance we are of the opinion that the sale of yarn by the applicant shall have to be regarded as sale of cotton yarn. 4. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the department and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.