JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by C. V. JANI, J. - The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of "two-side open wooden industrial trolley" made by the applicant in terms of its sale bill No. B/010-82, dated September 4, 1982 to M/s. Jyoti Processors is covered under entry 13 of Schedule III appended to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and not under entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A appended thereto or under entry 36 to the Schedule appended to the Government notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act ?" 2. The following are the relevant facts in brief : The appellant, M/s. Rashmi Enterprises, which is a dealer registered under the Act, is doing business of manufacturing industrial trolleys and parts of textile machinery. It sold "roller face industrial batching trolley" to M/s. Raipur Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, and also sold "two-side open wooden industrial trolley" to M/s. Jyoti Processors. In respect of these two sales the applicant filed an applicant before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 63 of the Act for determination of the rate of tax applicable to the said two sales. According to the applicant, the trolley sold to M/s. Raipur Mills Ltd. and M/s. Jyoti Processors were machinery used in the manufacture of goods and, therefore, they were covered by entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act, and even alternatively, according to the applicant, the said trolley could be said to be accessories of machinery covered by entry 36 of the exemption notification. The Deputy Commissioner accepted the applicant's plea in respect of "roller face industrial batching trolley" by holding it is machine, but held that "two-side open wooden industrial trolley" was neither machinery used in the manufacture of goods nor it was accessory of the machinery and so the said trolley was covered by residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act. 3. The said order of determination was challenged by the applicant by filing Appeal No. 8 of 1983. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the determination order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The said order of determination was challenged by the applicant by filing Appeal No. 8 of 1983. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the determination order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. In order to appreciate the scope of the referred question, it is necessary to understand the constitution and functioning of the two-side open wooden industrial trolley, which according to the applicant, must fall under entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A, and not in the residuary entry. The said trolley has four wheels specially designed with shafts and ball-bearings with grease-nipples. The trolley is not equipped with any mechanical contrivance as such, but the function of the trolley is to place and unplace the unfinished textile fabric for the purpose of various processes like heat-setting, drying, sanforizing, printing, etc. The trolley in question has pipe handle - one in front and another in rear, in order that the trolley can be moved from one place to another by means of hand and it can be used for the purpose of collecting clothes coming out of the plant after completion of the process. For the purpose of collecting the cloth the trolley is set under the respective machine. According to the applicant, the wheels of the trolley had been designed in such a fashion that the three wheels touch the ground while the fourth wheel which is the front wheel does not touch the ground and the trolley can be moved in the desired direction and so it becomes completely connected with and inter-acting in unison with respective machines. Hence, according to the applicant, the trolley can be said to be "machinery" which should fall under entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A of the Act, or accessory of the processing machine falling under entry 36 of the exemption notification issued by the Government under section 49 of the Act. 5. The relevant entry 16 of Schedule II, reads as under : Entry 16 : (1) Machinery used in the Six paise in Six paise in manufacture of goods the rupee. the rupee. excluding machinery specified in any other entry in this or any other Schedule. (2) Electric motors and spare parts and accessories thereof and oil engines. 5. The relevant entry 16 of Schedule II, reads as under : Entry 16 : (1) Machinery used in the Six paise in Six paise in manufacture of goods the rupee. the rupee. excluding machinery specified in any other entry in this or any other Schedule. (2) Electric motors and spare parts and accessories thereof and oil engines. The residuary entry No. 13 of Schedule III reads as under : Entry 13 : All goods other than those Seven paise in Seven paise in specified from time to time in the rupee. the rupee. sections 18, 19A and 19B and in Schedules I and II and in the preceding entries. 6. The spare parts and accessories of machinery which is covered by the said entry No. 1 or entry 16 in Part A of Schedule II, are exempted as per entry No. 36 of the notification issued under section 49 of the Act, which reads as under : Entry 36 : Sales of parts and accessories To the extent to which Nil (excluding ball-bearings) of the amount of sales machinery which is covered by tax exceed six paise in sub-entry (1) of entry 16 in the rupee and whole of Part A of Schedule II. general sales tax. 7. Mr. R. D. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the trolley in question can be said to be "machinery" as the contrivance of the trolley consists of its wheels designed so as to ensure a desired movement and the trolley and the processing machine are inter-connected and integrated and they interact in unison with each other by use of manual power and motive power with a view to subject the textile fabrics to specified process. Mr. Pathak emphasised the role played by such a trolley in carrying the textile cloth to the processing machine for the purpose of processing and receiving the cloth in regular folds after the processing in over. According to Mr. Pathak the wheel in such a trolley is itself a machinery in the primordial sense of the term. Mr. Pathak submitted in the alternative that in any event the trolley in question added to the convenience and effectiveness of the processing machine and so it can be said to be accessory of the processing machinery covered by exemption entry 36. 8. Mr. Pathak submitted in the alternative that in any event the trolley in question added to the convenience and effectiveness of the processing machine and so it can be said to be accessory of the processing machinery covered by exemption entry 36. 8. The Tribunal had rejected both the contentions by observing that there was no special contrivance in the trolley which could be distinguished from any other type of trolley or lorry in which cloth can be carried from one machine to another and that the trolley in question had nothing to do with the working of the machinery itself, inasmuch as it was a mere receptacle mounted on the wheels and the machinery could conveniently work without having anything to do with the trolley. Mr. D. C. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, vehemently supported these findings of the Tribunal. A number of judgments were cited by both the sides in support of their contentions. 9. The term "machinery" is nowhere defined in the Act. The earliest judicial attempt to define the term "machinery" was made by the Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality AIR 1922 PC 27. The Privy Council was concerned with the question whether a certain holding with an over-head tank could be assessed by the municipality by including the value of the tank itself. The third proviso to section 101 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, provided that "in estimating the annual value of a holding under this section, the value of any machinery that may be on such holding shall not be taken into consideration". It was contended that the balancing tank with its supporting structure was "machinery" within the meaning of the said proviso. The Privy Council found, as a matter of fact, that the tank was a receptacle for water and it held the water that was poured into it as long as it desired, but the tank itself was stationary and none of its parts moved when water in the tank was allowed to escape from it through a hole into pipes. The water was pushed or drawn along with pipes by the force of gravity. The water was pushed or drawn along with pipes by the force of gravity. The Privy Council, therefore, held that "machinery" must mean something more than a solid structure built upon the ground, whose parts either do not move at all, or if they do move, do not move the one with or upon the other in interdependent action with the object of producing a specific and definite result. Their Lordships were of the view that there was great danger in attempting to give a definition of the word "machinery" which would be applicable in all cases and it may be impossible to succeed in such an attempt. It was observed that if their Lordships were obliged to run the hazard of the attempt they would be inclined to say that the word "machinery" when used in the ordinary language prima facie, means some mechanical contrivances which by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances by the combined movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. Their Lordships further observed that the determination in any given case of what is or is not "machinery" must, to a large extent, depend upon the special facts of that case, and also on consideration as to whether an intelligent person would in the ordinary use of language, describe the items as machinery. 10. The above observations of the Privy Council were approved and broadly reproduced by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165; AIR 1964 SC 1693 in order to determine whether a diesel engine is "machinery". 11. The same ratio laid down by the Privy Council and the observations made therein have been followed by this Court and the Karnataka High Court. 11. The same ratio laid down by the Privy Council and the observations made therein have been followed by this Court and the Karnataka High Court. In Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1965] 16 STC 380, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of J. M. Shelat, C.J., and P. N. Bhagwati, J. (as they then were), quoted the test laid down by the Privy Council and it was held by applying the test that the humidifiers used by cotton textile mills in order to maintain certain humidity for the purpose of increasing the strength of yarn to avoid wastage of yarn and of improving the quality of yarn which are essential to the modern textile industry were "machinery" falling within the analogous entry 15 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was observed that every item of machinery which plays some role without which the manufacture of finished goods would not be possible would be machinery used in the manufacture of goods. 12. In Ambica Wood Works v. State of Gujarat [1979] 43 STC 338, another Division Bench of this Court consisting of P. D. Desai and B. K. Mehta, JJ. (as they then were) fell back upon the test laid down by the Privy Council, and held that the screen print block tables of wood sold to various textile mills by the assessee, which were fitted with steam pipes acting as instantaneous driers, could be nothing but "machinery". In State of Gujarat v. Sukan Industries [1979] 43 STC 344, the same Division Bench was concerned with the question whether domestic flour mills without in-built electric motor sold by the assessee could be said to be "machinery". The Division Bench found on facts that sufficient facts were not on record to answer the test and, therefore, the determination was left to the Tribunal in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. 13. In Dani v. State of Karnataka [1979] 44 STC 276, the Karnataka High Court was concerned with an almost identical question whether a tractor-trailer is a "machinery" or "accessory" of a machinery. The High Court summarised the criteria laid down by the Privy Council in the following words : "(i) The word 'machinery' must mean something more than a collection of ordinary tools. The High Court summarised the criteria laid down by the Privy Council in the following words : "(i) The word 'machinery' must mean something more than a collection of ordinary tools. It must mean something more than a solid structure built upon the ground whose parts either do not move at all or, if they do move, do not move the one with or upon the other in interdependent action with the object of producing a specific and definite result. (ii) It is not possible to define 'machinery' as applicable to all cases. However, it could be said that, when used in ordinary language, prima facie, means some mechanical contrivances, which by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances, by the combined movement and inter-dependent operation of their respective parts, generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. The tank and its supporting structure do not satisfy this definition. (iii) Determination as to what is or what is not "machinery" must, to a large extent, depend on the special facts of each case. (iv) Illustrations are better guides to ascertain the true meaning of the word 'machinery', when used ordinary and not as a specific definition. (v) Whether an intelligent person would, in the ordinary use of language, describe a particular thing as machinery." The High Court also referred to the judgment of this Court in Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 380 and considered the question with the help of some illustrations. It considered the cases of some tailoring machine and the typewriter and found that they could be said to be "machinery". It also considered the cases of scissors and wheelbarrow or hand-pulled cart and found that no intelligent person would consider these items as machinery and that there was no systematic arrangement of several parts which moved and functioned in the desired manner to perform any work, on the supply of force at a given point. It was also found that the trailer could not be said to be accessory of tractor as it was not meant to be fitted into a tractor for increasing its beauty, convenience or effectiveness, though a trailer may be necessary for putting the tractor to a particular use, i.e., carrying loads from one place to another. It was also found that the trailer could not be said to be accessory of tractor as it was not meant to be fitted into a tractor for increasing its beauty, convenience or effectiveness, though a trailer may be necessary for putting the tractor to a particular use, i.e., carrying loads from one place to another. The same reasoning would apply in the present case also. 14. In Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1991] 80 STC 233; AIR 1991 SC 1017 , the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether car seat covers and upholsteries can be said to be accessories to the motor vehicle in order to be exigible to sales tax at 13 per cent under entry 3 of the First Schedule read with section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court rejected the submission that the accessories as a part must contribute for convenience or effectiveness in the use of the car as a whole. It was laid down that the correct test would be whether the article in question would be an adjust or an accompaniment or addition for the convenient use of another part of the vehicle or adds to the beauty, elegance or comfort for the use of the motor vehicle or a supplementary or secondary to something of main or primary importance. It was held that general adaptability may be relevant, but may not by itself be conclusive, and taking the illustration of stereo or air-conditioner designed and manufactured for fitment in a motor car it was held that the car seat covers are accessories to the motor vehicle. 15. Applying this test as pronounced by the Supreme Court, we find that the trolley sold by the applicant cannot be said to be even accessory of the processing machinery inasmuch a such a trolley is neither as addition of adjunct or accompaniment for comfortable use of the processing machinery or for adding beauty, elegance or comfort in such use. Even though "two-side open wooden industrial trolley" sold by the applicant may have been specially designed for use in textile industry it does not partake any character of "machinery" nor can it be considered as an addition for use or functioning of the processing plant. Even though "two-side open wooden industrial trolley" sold by the applicant may have been specially designed for use in textile industry it does not partake any character of "machinery" nor can it be considered as an addition for use or functioning of the processing plant. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Dani v. State of Karnataka [1979] 44 STC 276 laying down that the trailer is neither a "machinery" nor "accessory" of machinery. 16. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of "two-side open wooden industrial trolley" by the applicant to M/s. Jyoti Processors as per its sale bill dated September 4, 1982 would be covered under the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III and not under entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A of the Act, nor under entry 36 of the Schedule appended to the Government notification issued under section 4(2) of the Act. 17. The reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered in the affirmative.