Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in the petition shall also govern the disposal of other connected petition being W. P. No. 1737 of 2000 as in both these petitions, one common question of law is involved. ( 2. ) THE question that arises for consideration in these two petitions is whether "foot valve" is or can be treated as an "accessories" of the pumping sets so as to fall under entry 89 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam" ). Yet another question that falls for consideration is whether "foot valve" is or can be treated as an agricultural implement so as to fall under entry 94 of Schedule I to the Adhiniyam. The facts which lie in a narrow compass for the disposal of the petition need mention infra in brief. ( 3. ) THE petitioner is a proprietory concern, one Shri Samsuddin being its proprietor. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of "foot valves". According to the petitioner, these foot valves are used in centrifugal pumps which are generally used in agricultural operations. The petitioner has set up one small-scale unit for manufacturing these foot valves. It is registered as small-scale industry. ( 4. ) A dispute arose before the commercial tax authorities as to whether these foot valves are subjected to sales tax (commercial tax) and if so under which entry of the Schedule appended to the Adhiniyam. In order to resolve this dispute, the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax under Section 68 of the Adhiniyam. ( 4. ) A dispute arose before the commercial tax authorities as to whether these foot valves are subjected to sales tax (commercial tax) and if so under which entry of the Schedule appended to the Adhiniyam. In order to resolve this dispute, the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax under Section 68 of the Adhiniyam. The contention of the petitioner before the Commissioner was that these foot valves are in fact accessories of pumping sets and hence fall in entry 89 of Schedule I. An alternative contention was that if they are not regarded as accessories of pumping sets for the purpose of attracting entry 89 then in that event, they (foot valves) can as well be treated as an agricultural implements-- falling in entry 94 of Schedule I. In either case, the contention was that whether as accessories of pumping sets or agricultural implements, the goods in question are exempt from payment of tax because they fall in Schedule I. On the other hand, the contention of the department was that the goods in question (foot valves) neither fall in entry 89 nor in entry 94 of Schedule I but they are subjected to tax at the rate of 6 per cent under Part VII of Schedule II, i. e. , residuary entry. ( 5. ) THE Commissioner by his order dated August 4, 1995 (annexure P1) held against the petitioner. In the opinion of the learned Commissioner, the goods "foot valves" are neither accessories of pumping set nor can they be regarded as agricultural implements and therefore, no benefit of exemption can be given to the petitioner either under entry 89 or entry 94 of Schedule I. It was held that since foot valves are not specifically mentioned in any of the entries of the Schedule II and hence they have to be taxed under the residuary entry, i. e. , Part IV of Schedule II. It is against this order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and has filed this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 6. ) THE State has filed the return in support of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. It is against this order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and has filed this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 6. ) THE State has filed the return in support of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. In substance, the stand of the State in the return is that the view expressed by the Commissioner while deciding the dispute under Section 68 holding the goods in question to be exigible to payment of tax at the rate of 6 per cent under Part VII of Schedule II (residuary entry) is legal and proper and hence no case of interference to upturn this view is made out. ( 7. ) HEARD Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. ( 8. ) RELYING upon the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras [1991] 80 STC 233, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the foot valves have to be termed as an accessory of pumping sets. Learned counsel urged that the test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in deciding as to how a particular goods is regarded as an accessory if apply to the goods in question in its correct perspective then there should be no difficulty in holding that foot valves are an accessories to pumping sets. Learned counsel while reiterating the same submission as was pressed into service before the Commissioner also urged as an alternative submission that since the foot valve is used in pumping sets it can as well be regarded as an agricultural implement. On these submissions, learned counsel urged that in either case, the goods in question fall in Schedule I and hence are exempt from payment of tax. ( 9. ) IN reply the submission of learned counsel for the State in substance was for upholding of the view taken by the Commissioner. ( 10. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the view taken by the Commissioner is not sustainable and hence this petition deserves to be allowed resulting in quashing of the impugned order of Commissioner. ( 10. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the view taken by the Commissioner is not sustainable and hence this petition deserves to be allowed resulting in quashing of the impugned order of Commissioner. ( 11. ) THE relevant entries on which the discussion has centred round need mention infra : SCHEDULE I SCHEDULE I (See section 15) Goods exempted from tax S. No. Description of goods Conditions and exceptions subject to which exceptions has been allowed. (1) (2) (3) 89 Pumping sets below 10 horse power and accessories thereof. 94 All kinds of agricultural implements worked with the aid of power or tractor. SCHEDULE II Part VII S. No. Description of goods Total rate of tax (1) (2) (3) 1 6all other goods not included in Schedule I or any other part of this Schedule ( 12. ) A perusal of entry 89 would indicate that exemption in payment of tax is given to (1) pumping sets having their strength below 10 horse power and (2) to accessories which are used in these pumps. In order to, therefore, claim exemption on any pumping set under entry 89, one has to prove its horse power. In other words, if the horse power of any pumping set is proved by the dealer to be below 10 h. p. then in that event, such pumping set will be exempted from payment of tax. Likewise, if an exemption is claimed on a particular item under entry 89 then one has to prove that an item is an accessory of that pumping set whose strength is below 10 h. p. In other words, two things need to be proved before an exemption is claimed under entry 89 on a particular item, firstly, it has to be proved that an item is an accessory of a pumping set and secondly, that pumping set has its strength below 10 h. p. Mere proving of accessory of pumping set is not enough. What is more important is that it must be an accessory of a pumping set whose strength is below 10 h. p. ( 13. What is more important is that it must be an accessory of a pumping set whose strength is below 10 h. p. ( 13. ) LIKEWISE, perusal of entry 94 would indicate that all kinds of agricultural implements which are used with the aid of power (electricity) or with the aid of tractor are also exempt from payment of tax. So in order to claim exemption under entry 94 what is required to be proved is that a particular item is an agricultural implement and is operated either with the aid of electricity (power) or with the aid of tractor. ( 14. ) SO far as the entry falling in Schedule II of Part VII is concerned, it is known as residuary entry. What is not specified in taxable entry, i. e. , in Schedule II (Part I to Part VI) but is held to be taxable then it would be taxed at a flat rate of 6 per cent in Part VII. ( 15. ) NOW coming to the word "accessories" mentioned in entry 89. One may notice that it is not a legal term. It is a term used in common parlance. It has also acquired prominence in commercial world. This term frequently came up for interpretation before several High Courts in the context of sales tax laws. Eventually, it was finally interpreted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehra Bros. [1991] 80 STC 233. The question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Mehra Bros. case [1991] 80 STC 233 was whether car seat covers are articles adapted generally as parts and accessories of the motor vehicle, so as to be taxed treating it to be accessories under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Their Lordships while holding the seat covers to be an accessories of the motor vehicle examined the true meaning of the word "accessory" in the context of its dictionary meaning as also in common parlance and laid down the following test : "having given our anxious consideration, with respect, we are of the considered view that the test laid down by the Karnataka High Court that the accessories as a part must contribute for convenience or effectiveness in the use of the car as a whole is not a correct test. In our view the correct test would be whether the article or articles in question would be an adjunct or an accompaniment or an 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 the main or primary importance. Whether an article or part is an accessory cannot be decided with reference to its necessity to its effective use of the vehicle as a whole. General adaptability may be relevant but may not by itself be conclusive. Take for instance a stereo or air-conditioner designed and manufactured for fitment in a motor car. It would not be absolutely necessary or generally adapted. But when they are fitted to the vehicle, undoubtedly it would add comfort or enjoyment in the use of the vehicle. Another test may be whether a particular article or articles or parts, can be said to be available for sale in an automobile market or shops or places of manufacture ; if the dealer says it to be available certainly such an article or part would be manufactured or kept for sale only as an accessory for the use in the motor vehicle. Of course, this may not also be a conclusive test but it is given only by way of illustration. Undoubtedly some of the parts like axle, steering, tyres, battery, etc. , are absolutely necessary accessories for the effective use of the motor vehicle. If the test that each accessory must add to the convenience or effectiveness of the use of the car as a whole is given acceptance many a part in the motor car by this process would fall outside the ambit of accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to be the intention of the Legislature. Similarly in Free India Cycle Industries [1970] 26 STC 428 and Shadi Cycle Industries [1971] 27 STC 56, the Allahabad High Court held that cycle covers, rexine saddle cover whether part or accessory of vehicle under item 34 of the notification dated April 5, 1961, issued by the State of U. P. under Sections 3 and 3-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (15 of 1948) with the same reasoning, as was given by the Karnataka High Court, to be not accessories. We express that the Allahabad High Court also has not laid down the test correctly. Thus, considered we hold that car seat covers or upholstery are accessories as an addition ; an adjunct ; an accompaniment for comfortable use of the motor vehicles or for adding elegance to the seat. Admittedly the appellant manufactured car seat covers and upholstery for sale as an automobile part in the regular course of business. Therefore, they are exigible to sales tax at 13 per cent under item 3 of Schedule I read with Section 3 (3) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. " ( 16. ) IT is this test that has to be kept in mind while deciding whether the goods in question, namely, "foot valves" are accessories of the pumping sets within the meaning of entry 89 ? ( 17. ) IN my considered opinion, I am inclined to hold that foot valves are in fact accessories of pumping sets. It may be seen that the foot valve by itself may not be of any use as such but when it is fitted in the pumping set, it adds to the convenient use of pumping set. Its addition in the pumping sets increases the utility and working of pumping sets. The object of using the foot valve in any pumping sets is to store the water in the pipeline (suction line) so that the moment the pump is switched on, the discharge of water is available instantly. If the foot valves are not fitted in the pumping sets, even then the pumping sets are usable and can function but if the foot valves are fitted in the pumping sets then it increases its efficiency and working. It is this test which is in accord with the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Mehra Brothers case [1991] 80 STC 233, that makes the foot valves accessories of pumping sets. ( 18. ) EVEN the commercial world, has been treating the foot valve to be an accessory of pumping sets. It is this test which is in accord with the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Mehra Brothers case [1991] 80 STC 233, that makes the foot valves accessories of pumping sets. ( 18. ) EVEN the commercial world, has been treating the foot valve to be an accessory of pumping sets. One can take note of the guidelines issueed by the Institute of Cost and Work Accounts of India (annexure P/3) wherein, the premier Institute in the country has on the basis of their own survey has issued the guidelines to all cost accountants to treat the foot valves to be accessories of pumping sets for the purpose of costing in accountancy. ( 19. ) IN view of the aforesaid declaration rendered by this Court, it is not necessary to examine the alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the foot valve is an agricultural implement as defined in entry 94 of Schedule I. ( 20. ) THE question, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption under entry 89 of Schedule I will now be decided by the commercial tax authorities because as observed supra the exemption is confined to only those foot valves which are used in pumping sets having their strength below 10 H. P. ( 21. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated August 4, 1995 (annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner is set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. No costs.