JUDGMENT (Per Shri T. M. Chhatpar, Member) : The present second appeal is directed against the order dt. 1-10-91 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) VIII, Bombay City Division, Bombay, dismissing the appeal filed before him against the order of grant of registration certificate by the Sales Tax Officer under the provisions of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 (here-in-after called the Works Contract Act). The department has raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the present second appeal before the Tribunal. To understand the preliminary objection, it will be better if the facts leading to the filing of the present second appeal are briefly narrated. The appellant has been carrying on the activity of Xeroxing and Cyclostyling. The Sales Tax Officer, after verifying the application, granted registration certificate with effect from 31-1-89 on 12-2-90, as according to him, the appellant's turnover of purchases has exceeded the prescribed limit of 2 lakhs on 31.1.89. Against this grant of registration certificate order dt. 12-2-90, an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the grant of registration certificate on the ground that the appellant is not at all liable for registration, as the transactions of Xeroxing and Cyclostyling do not amount to transactions of Works contracts and hence the purchases effected in connection with Xeroxing and Cyclostyling will not be purchases liable for registration fastening the liability on the appellant. It was contended before the Assistant Commissioner in first appeal that the Sales Tax Officer has wrongly granted registration certificate and he ought to have rejected the registration application. The Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the activity of taking out xerox copy on Xerox Machine is an activity of Works-contract. The purchases effected in connection with xeroxing and cyclostyling will amount to purchase within the meaning of the Works Contracts Act and hence the Sales Tax Officer was justified in issuing registration certificate to the appellant. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal on merits. The present second appeal is now filed before the Tribunal against this order of the Assistant Commissioner justifying the action of the Sales Tax Officer in granting registration certificate. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal on merits. The present second appeal is now filed before the Tribunal against this order of the Assistant Commissioner justifying the action of the Sales Tax Officer in granting registration certificate. The department has raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the present second appeal before the Tribunal, as the registration certificate was granted by the Sales Tax Officer on the voluntary application filed by the appellant never disputed his liability for registration. Hence, as no issue was raised before the Sales Tax Officer, grant of registration certificate to the appellant cannot be the subject-matter of any appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The first appeal was, therefore, not maintainable before the Assistant Commissioner. Even though the appellate authority has not dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable, yet, the second appeal filed before the Tribunal is not maintainable as the first appellate authority has failed to take judicial cognizance of the various rulings especially the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Neo Fabric Printers v. The State of Maharashtra decided on 3rd April, 1963 (Sales Tax Reference No. 19 of 1962) According to the department, by entertaining the appeal by the first appellate authority, an infractuous appeal cannot be converted into a valid appeal. It is, therefore, contended by the department that the present second appeal may be rejected as not maintainable, as the first appeal itself was not maintainable. Shri S. S. Gaitonde, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, in reply, to the preliminary objection, has submitted that the ruling of the Bombay High Court is given on the peculiar facts available in that case and hence that ruling cannot be held as a proposition of law holding that no appeal lies against grant of registration certificate. He submitted that grant of registration certificate itself is an order, which is appealable and hence appeal was maintainable before the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant, in fact, by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against the grant of registration certificate has disputed his liability for registration by disputing that the transactions of Xeroxing do not amount to transactions of works contract. The Tribunal has already held in the case of M/s. Hari & Co. The appellant, in fact, by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against the grant of registration certificate has disputed his liability for registration by disputing that the transactions of Xeroxing do not amount to transactions of works contract. The Tribunal has already held in the case of M/s. Hari & Co. v. The State of Maharashtra (Second Appeal No. 17 of 1989 decided on 11-10-91) that the transaction of Xeroxing and Cyclostyling do not amount to transactions of works-contract. Shri. Gaitonde submitted that the act of filing of the first appeal itself will show that the appellant had applied for registration by way of abundant caution and dispute has arisen out of grant of registration certificate, which dispute can be challenged by filing an appeal. Shri. Gaitonde, further, submitted that in the case of M/s. Neo Fabrics Printers, the Court came to the conclusion that no dispute was raised before the Sales Tax Officer for grant of registration because the dealer in that case had not challenged the assessments. We do not find any distinction in the facts available in the present case and the facts which were available in the case of M/s. Neo Fabrics Printers (cited supra). M/s. Neo Fabrics had applied for grant of registration certificate under section 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The applicants having themselves asked for registration, the Sales Tax Officer granted registration certificate, by holding the applicant as a dealer carrying on the business and liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the present case also, the appellant had voluntarily applied for registration and the Sales Tax Officer had granted registration accordingly on the voluntary application. Here also we do not find any mention about the application being made in protest or there is anything in the record of the Sales Tax Officer suggesting that the application was made by way of abundant caution. No dispute was raised before the Sales Tax Officer about liability for registration. Thus, the Sales Tax Officer was not at all called upon to decide any issue about liability. The Sales Tax Officer proceeded on the footing that the transactions of Xeroxing amounted to transactions of works-contract as already admitted by the appellant in his application. No dispute was raised before the Sales Tax Officer about liability for registration. Thus, the Sales Tax Officer was not at all called upon to decide any issue about liability. The Sales Tax Officer proceeded on the footing that the transactions of Xeroxing amounted to transactions of works-contract as already admitted by the appellant in his application. In the course of proceedings of grant of registration also no issue was raised by the appellant and no dispute was raised that the such transactions do not amount to works-contract. On the contrary, the details of transactions were given to the Sales Tax Officer and the details of purchases in connection with work of xeroxing and cyclostyling were furnished. The High Court in the case of Neo Fabrics Printers has turned down the contention raised in that case about application being made by way of abundant caution because the High Court did not find any mention in the application for registration that the application is being filed by way of abundant caution. In the present case also we do not find any such issue raised before the Sales Tax Officer on going through the record. Only for further strengthening the view, the High Court found further that the assessments were also not challenged by that dealer. The High Court in the case of M/s. Neo Fabrics Printers had also observed that if a dealer had any doubt about its liability for registration an application under Section 52 would have been made. In the present case also no such application was even thought of by the applicant as the applicant had straight away gone for registration by admitting the liability for registration on the basis of the transactions of xeroxing as works contract. Even though the appeal is filed within the prescribed lime before the Assistant Commissioner, still that appeal is rightly contended by the department as not maintainable because the order of granting registration certificate on the facts of the present case does not raise any issue for adjudication. Had the application for registration made under protest and or even the dispute would have been raised in the course of proceedings for grant of registration about the liability for registration and the Sales Tax Officer would have thereafter granted the registration certificate. Rejecting the contention the grant of registration certificate would have raised the issue for filing of a competent appeal. Rejecting the contention the grant of registration certificate would have raised the issue for filing of a competent appeal. On the facts of the present case, which are pari materia in all respects with the case of M/s. Neo Fabrics Printers we are bound by the decision of our own High Court and hence we have no other go; but to hold the present second appeal as not maintainable. When second appeal itself is not maintainable, we cannot decide the issue about the liability for registration on merits in the present second appeal proceedings. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER The second appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.