JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. This tax case revision is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in Coimbatore Tribunal Appeal No.62 of 1995, dated 04.09.1997. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of this tax case revision, are as follows:- (a). The petitioners are dealers in gas lighters and they are doing business at No.779, Edayar Street, Coimbatore. They have reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.2,09,373.00 for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessment in respect of the item in question was originally assessed by the Assessing Officer at 3% accepting the same as electronic item and the same was sought to be re-opened under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act') based on the fact that the gas lighters were assessable under Entry 123 of the First Schedule at 8% and the said revision of assessment was based on the clarification of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 16.09.1993 and the objection filed to the above proposal was overruled. (b). As the day to day stock accounts were not maintained even for the goods purchased from the other state against the 'C' forms, the returns filed by the petitioner were rejected by the Assessing Officer as incorrect and incomplete and the turnover liable to tax was proposed to be determined to the best of judgment and accordingly, the total and taxable turn over proposed to be levied was arrived at Rs.3,04,495.00 and notices were issued to the petitioner inviting objections, if any, against such proposal of assessment. The petitioners have not filed any objections, but the Manager, who is looking after the business, requested ten days time, stating that the proprietrix is admitted in the hospital and even after check of accounts, the petitioner was permitted to produce the details with regard to purchase returns accounted for in the accounts, but they were neither able to produce the connected records in support of their claim nor requested further extension of time. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer has assessed the sales of gas lighters by the petitioner as liable to tax at 8% single point and assessed the same accordingly and notices were issued proposing the assessment by taking into consideration of the facts and figures furnished by the petitioner, to which, the petitioner, without producing any records, simply requested time for filing their objections. But, the request made by the petitioner was not accepted in the absence of any valid reasons and the proposals were, therefore, confirmed and the petitioner was finally assessed to tax on the total and taxable turnover of Rs.3,04,495.00 under the Act for the year 1992-93 by the Assessing Officer, as per order dated 15.02.1994 and accordingly, notices in Form B3 and U with an order in Form W were issued. (c). Claiming that the items sold by the petitioner are electronic goods, for which, concessional rate at 3% is leviable, the petitioner has filed an appeal in A.P.No.1117 of 1994 before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore, and prayed to refix the rate of tax. The Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides and checking the accounts predicted in support of the returns and treating the commodity of gas lighter falling under Entry 123 of the First Schedule up to 12.03.1993 liable to 8% single point and after 12.03.1993 under 16% single point, confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, as per final order dated 27.09.1994,. (d). Aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal in C.T.A.No.62 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, claiming that the item dealt in by them is manufactured in Gujarat State and in Gujarat, it is called electronic gas lighter and therefore, the item is eligible at the concessional levy at 3% as per Government Notification dated 12.03.1990 and 30.03.1990 with effect from 17.03.1990. The Tribunal, after relying on the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, in which, the term 'electronic system' is defined as having or operating with the aid of many components or microchips that control and direct an electronic current, as per order dated 04.09.1997, confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. (e). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present tax case revision has been filed. (e). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present tax case revision has been filed. 3. The tax case revision is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in relying on the Dictionary meaning, when the same item is treated by the Gujarat Act as an item falling under electronic goods?" 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 5. It is the contended that the order of the Salex Tax Appellate Tribunal is erred in confirming the assessment made under item 123 of the I Schedule and the Tribunal ought to have seen that the circular of the Commissioner has no binding and it ought to have independently considered the tax liability of item in question and the Tribunal also erred in laying emphasis on the Dictionary meaning of the term, 'electronics". It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the same item in question is answered as electronic item under Gujarat Act for the purpose of TNGST Act, and the self same item cannot assume a different character. Finally it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that under I.S.I. Specification, the item in question namely the electronic gas lighter is understood as electronic and as held by the Hon'ble High Court reported in (1985) M.T.C.R. 70, the I.S.I classification is material for proper understanding of the item that the trade in this field had also treated the same as electronic item and in the circumstances, resort to the dictionary meaning is wholly against the decision of the Supreme Court and High Court. 6. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. This is a case of assessment of the year 1992-93 and the issue for consideration is whether the electronic gas lighters form part of electronic items falling under Serial No.123 of the First Schedule or under item 41(c) of the First Schedule. It is the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not maintained any records with regard to purchase of goods and in spite of giving an opportunity to produce the records, they were not produced. It is the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not maintained any records with regard to purchase of goods and in spite of giving an opportunity to produce the records, they were not produced. And hence, the returns filed by the petitioner were rejected as incorrect and incomplete and the turnover liable to tax was proposed to be determined to the best of the judgment as detailed below for the year 1992-93:- 7. Even though notice was issued to the petitioner inviting their objection, if any, against the aforesaid proposal of assessment, they have not filed any objections, but the Manager, who is looking after the business, requested ten days time, stating that the proprietrix is bedridden in the hospital and even after check of accounts, the petitioner was permitted to produce the details with regard to purchase returns accounted for in the accounts, but they were not able to produce any connected records in support of their claim. Hence, on the basis of the materials available on record, the proposal was confirmed and the petitioner was finally assessed to tax on the total and taxable turnover of Rs.3,04,495.00 under the Act for the year 1992-93 by the Assessing Officer, against which order, an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. 8. The Appellate Authority, on re-appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner accounted for a sum of Rs.84,656/-for the purchase of mixies and in the absence of any recorded evidence for the purchase returns accounted for in the accounts, it was found that the claim was not found to be allowed and accordingly, the sale value of the goods was estimated and assessed to tax as Rs.93,122.00 at 8%. The Appellate Authority further held that the day today stock accounts were not monitored even for the goods purchased from the other State against the 'C' forms and accordingly, confirmed the order of assessment made by the Assessing Authority. 9. The petitioner, claiming that the electronic gas lighters were declared in the State, in which they were produced, viz., Gujarat, as electronic goods, and hence, they may be ordered to be assessed at the rate of 3% only instead of 8% by treating the same item differently under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, approached the Sales Tax Tribunal. 10. 10. Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, though it was contended on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that electronic gas lighters would fall under item 41(c) of the First Schedule, as they were equipped with electrical device, on the other hand, the Department claimed that those items would fall under Serial No.123 of the First Schedule. 11. It is the further submission made by the appellant before the Tribunal, who is the petitioner herein, that electronic gas lighters fall under other electronic goods and the same was rightly classified in the Board's Proceedings, dated 28.02.1979 and electronic gas lighters are fitted with imported piezo elements, which are classified as electronic device and when the handle is pressed, it strikes at the piezo elements, which causes spark to light the gas stoves. It is also submitted that this commodity is manufactured in the State of Gujarat (Rajkot), where it is classified as electronic goods and included in item No.97-D ii (a) of the Schedule II-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and the said commodity, which was imported into the state and sold as such, cannot be classified as any other commodity. It is further submitted that as per the case reported in 87 STC Page 167 and 85 STC Page 56, for the purpose of taxing statute goods referred to, it should be understood in the same way and sense as one understood in the common parlance and as such, the commodity is to be assessed at the rate of 3% only as falling under item 41-C of the First Schedule and not under Entry 123 of the First Schedule. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Representative, brought to the notice of the Tribunal the clarification issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 24.01.1994, wherein gas lighter is classified as falling under item 123 of the First Schedule and another clarification, dated 08.10.1994, classifying the gas lighter as liable to be taxed at 8%, submitted that the aforesaid item would not fall under electronic goods as there was no element electronic device in the system and prayed for confirming 8% levy. 13. 13. The Tribunal, taking into consideration of the above submissions made by the respective parties and on verification of the sample of the gas lighter produced by the assessee, and also considering the definition of electronic goods, to the criteria that it should be operated by electricity and devices like sensor and gas lighter is working by a simple mechanism, which can be operated manually without application of any electrical or electronic devices, and also the basic principle that to treat a commodity as electronic goods, it should be basically operated by electrical or sensor device, and after taking into consideration the definition of the word, 'electronic system' as having or operating with the aid of many components or microchips that control and direct an electronic current from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, treating that gas lighter is liable to tax at 8% under item 123 of the First Schedule to the Act. 14. Therefore, all the three authorities, have uniformly or consistently held, not only on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, but also as per the clarification issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Income Tax, as referred to above and after taking into consideration the dictionary meaning of the word, 'electronic goods', that the item in question is not an electronic gas lighter and it is not operated through any electrical device, but it is manually operated and therefore, it is liable to be taxed at 8%. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, made in Tax Case (Revision) No.2281 of 2008, wherein, the Division Bench, in similar circumstances, held that it is for the assessee to establish by legally acceptable material evidence to support its stand that its product namely, electronic gas lighter, is an electronic good or not and since such an exercise was not carried out either by the Original Assessing Authority or any other lower Appellate Forums, in the interest of justice, an opportunity was given to the assessee to establish its claim that the so called electronic gas lighter was operated by electronic device and not mechanical device or manually operated lighter and remitted back the matter. 16. 16. We are unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in the case referred to above. As seen from the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, the Assistant Appellate Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, though from the beginning it is the case of the assessee that it is an electronic good and also vehemently contended that it falls under Entry 41(c) of the First Schedule and not under Entry 123 of the First Schedule and also disputed levy of tax at 8%, all the three authorities have given their own consideration by consistently holding that the assessee has not maintained its records either through purchase or sale of the above said goods. Therefore, in the absence of such materials and in view of the the elaborate consideration of the Tribunal based on the circulars issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and extracting the dictionary meaning thereby satisfying themselves for rejecting the claim of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that no purpose will be served in remanding the matter back and the above said judgment, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is distinguishable for the reasons stated above. 17. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the authorities have not committed any illegality or mistaken definition of the meaning of the term, 'electronic good', while holding that electronic gas lighter is not an electronic good operated through electricity or devices like sensor, but it is operated manually, as per the circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and we cannot take a different view in the matter. 18. In the result, this tax case revision is dismissed. No costs.