JUDGMENT :- P.B. Varale, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners-State of Maharashtra through Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Entry Tax Officer, Nagpur are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai in Second Appeal No. 1294 of 2005 thereby allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.1-Smt. Anuja Chhajed. The brief facts, giving rise to filing of the present petition, can be summarized as under. 3. The respondent No.1 purchased a chassis (vehicle chassis) at Raipur in State of Madhya Pradesh on 10.07.1995. Respondent No.1 effected the entry of said chassis in the State of Maharashtra causing it to be driven on public road. Respondent No.1 thereafter purchased bus body at Nagpur for mounting the same on the chassis, which was entered into State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 got the bus registered with the registration authorities namely Regional Transport Office having its registration No. MH-31-M-5270. On 28.11.1996, the Entry Tax Officer levied an entry tax on the chassis because of effecting entry of the chassis from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the State of Maharashtra. Being aggrieved by the levy of the entry tax, respondent No.1 approached the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeal), Nagpur being the first appellate authority challenging the assessment. On 30.05.2005, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the said order passed by the said authority, respondent No.1 further carried the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai and the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity) decided the Second Appeal on 07.11.2005 and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for passing assessment order afresh. The Tribunal, in its order of remand, quashed the orders of the lower authorities namely Assessment Officer and the first appellate Authority. The Assessment Officer, on 15.02.2007, on considering the matter afresh, passed the order of assessment on the purchase value of chassis only. This order was challenged by respondent No.1 in appeal before Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeal), Nagpur. The first appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 vide order dated 30.05.2005 and being dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, respondent No.1 carried appeal before the Tribunal. This order was challenged by respondent No.1 in appeal before Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeal), Nagpur. The first appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 vide order dated 30.05.2005 and being dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, respondent No.1 carried appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 11.01.2011 allowed the appeal and thereby the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 30.05.2005 and the order passed by the Assessment Officer i.e. Entry Trax Officer, Nagpur dated 15.02.2007 are set aside. The Tribunal further directed that the amount which was already deposited by respondent No.1 (appellant before the Tribunal) to the tune of Rs.53,425/-to which the appellant is entitled be refunded. The Tribunal further directed the authorities to take appropriate steps for refund of the amount i.e. tax on top priority. 4. Heard Smt. Bharti Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 5. Smt. Bharti Dangre, the learned Additional GP for the petitioners vehemently submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in appreciating the facts of the matter as well as the law involved in the matter. In her detailed submissions, the learned Additional GP invites our attention to the provisions of Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 as well as the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. She further submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court and places heavy reliance in support of her submission on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (reported in AIR 1972 SC 229 ). 6. Per contra, Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 supports the order of the Tribunal which is impugned in the petition. He urges that the chassis was brought by respondent No.1 from outside the area of the State of Maharashtra i.e. from Raipur (State of Madhya Pradesh) and the same was utilized for mounting the bus body upon the same. He urges that the chassis was brought by respondent No.1 from outside the area of the State of Maharashtra i.e. from Raipur (State of Madhya Pradesh) and the same was utilized for mounting the bus body upon the same. Thus, it was an effort of learned Counsel for respondent No.1 to submit that by mounting the bus body the chassis was consumed as the process ultimately resulted into an altogether different product i.e. motor vehicle and as such respondent No.1 was not required to pay any taxes. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1, in support of his submission, places reliance on a Trade Circular No. 20T of 2001 dated 05.10.2001. He further places reliance on the observations of the Tribunal referring to the word “consumption” which contrasts it with concept of “use” to draw a distinction between two processes. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 1998 STC 330 ). 7. In view of these rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we have considered the controversy involved in the present petition. It is not in dispute that the chassis was purchased by respondent No.1 in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Raipur on 10.07.1995 and the same was brought in the State of Maharashtra effecting its entry. It is also not in dispute that bus body was mounted on the said chassis which was entered into the State of Maharashtra and the vehicle was registered with the registration authorities of State of Maharashtra bearing registration No. MH-31-M-5270. The relevant provision to be considered in this matter is Section 3 of the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. The same reads thus:- “3. The relevant provision to be considered in this matter is Section 3 of the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. The same reads thus:- “3. Incidence of Tax – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the purchase value of a motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use, consumption or, as the case may be, sale therein and which is liable for registration (or for which an assignment of a new registration mark is required to be obtained) in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette but not exceeding the rates prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act or fifteen paisein the rupee whichever is less: Provided that, no tax shall be levied and collected in respect of a motor vehicle which was registered in any Union Territory or any other State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a period of thirty months or more before the date on which it is registered or assigned a new registration mark in the State under that Act. (2) The tax shall be payable and paid by an importer within 15 days from the entry of motor vehicle into the local area or before an application is made for registration of the vehicle or for obtaining an assignment of a new registration mark therefor under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whichever is earlier, in the manner laid down under Section 10 of this Act: (3) The tax shall be in addition to the tax levied and collected as octroi by a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, ZillaParishad, Panchayat Samiti or Village Panchayat or any other local authority, as the case may be, within its local area.” (emphasis supplied). It needs to be mentioned that word “consumption” has been added in Section 3(1) vide amendment on 25.04.2012. It needs to be mentioned that word “consumption” has been added in Section 3(1) vide amendment on 25.04.2012. It will not be out of place to mention that prior to the amendment, the relevant provision under Section 3(1) prevalent at that time, reads thus:- “3(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the purchase value of a motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration ...” The words “for use or sale therein” are substituted by words “for use, consumption, or as the case may be, sale therein” by the amendment of 25.04.2012. 8. Considering the provisions of the Act, we find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Additional GP Mrs. Bharti Dangre that the chassis was bought at Raipur and effected its entry in the State of Maharashtra for causing it to be driven on public road and as such the Assessment Officer has rightly levied the tax. There is also considerable merit in her submission that the Tribunal has totally lost sight of the fact that the term “motor vehicle” refers to and defines in the Act namely the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 as well as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines “motor vehicle” inclusive of the term “chassis”. For better appreciation, we may quote the definition of motor vehicles in both these Acts. The “motor vehicle” as defined in the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1987 reads thus:- “motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle as defined in clause (2) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and includes motor cars, motor taxi cabs, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooters, moterettee, motor omnibuses, motor vans, motor lorries and chassis of motor vehicles and bodies or tankers built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles.” (emphasis supplied). The “motor vehicle” as defined under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Section 2(28) reads thus:- “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters.” (emphasis supplied). 9. On the backdrop of these facts, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that as the chassis was consumed by mounting a bus body on it and resulting “bus” being a different product, respondent No.1 was not entitled to pay any taxes. We find merit in the submission of the learned Additional GP that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (supra). Before Apex Court, the petitioners, in challenge to the levy of tax on the chassis, submitted that such levy of tax on the chassis is illegal and unconstitutional. It was the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant before the Apex Court that a chassis neither could be used nor it could be kept for use in a public place before a body was fitted to it and was lying as the said step is not taken, the question of levy of tax would not arise. The Apex Court was not convinced with the argument in support of the submission of the appellant and while rejecting these arguments, the Apex Court observed thus, “merely because bodies were going to be attached by the ultimate purchasers, it cannot be said that the running of the chassis on the roads of Andhra Pradesh would attract exemption.” The Apex Court also turned down the submission of seeking exemption on the ground that the chassis would be meaningless unless body is attached to it. By considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the Apex Court also refers to the meaning of word “use” in the Oxford Dictionary and observed thus:- “To make use of as a means or instrument. To employ for a profitable end, in our view, it is not necessary for a chassis to have a body attached to it before it can be used within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as it can be used by the man who drives it and such use of it on public roads would be enough to attract the levy. Ordinary chassis have bodies attached to them for commercially profitable use but even without a body a chassis can be used and is actually used when it is taken over public roads.” We may add here the meaning of word “use” referred to in a “Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary” which is as, “to employ for the accomplishment of a purpose; make use of”. 10. Taking into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing with the word “use” as referred to its meaning in Oxford Dictionary as well as the meaning of word “use” referred to in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, in our opinion, the argument advanced by Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in support of his submission that as the chassis was consumed in mounting of the bus body on it and as such this different product is not entitled for any tax, is unacceptable. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 places reliance on a Trade Circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 05th October, 2001. The Trade Circular by referring to certain representations received by the government, reads thus:- “Several representations have been received by the Government pointing out that when chassis of buses and trucks are purchased locally but where the bodies have been built outside the State and the vehicle is brought for registration before the Road Transport Authorities in Maharashtra, Entry Tax on the value of the body is not recovered. Perhaps because, at the time of registration of the vehicle, the importer produces only the invoice of the chassis showing that the Maharashtra Sales Tax has been paid and avoids to reveal the fact that the body has been built and mounted outside the State of Maharashtra and evades payment of Entry Tax on the value of the bus body, air conditioner equipments and any other accessories including seats, which are fitted into the vehicle outside the State of Maharashtra. This results in loss of revenue to the State. Although, after introduction of uniform floor rate of tax, the magnitude of this problem may have reduced. However, it will be in the interest of revenue to clarify the existing provisions of the Entry Tax Act by making it abundantly clear that the tax is leviable on the entire value of the motor vehicle including the bus body, air conditioner equipments and accessories. For this purpose it will be essential to refer to section 2 of the Act which provides, amongst other things a definition of motor vehicle in clause (i) of sub-section (1) by explicitly specifying as to what motor vehicle means. For the purpose of this Act, namely: Motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle as defined in clause (18) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and includes motor cars, motor tax cabs, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooters, moterette, motor omnibuses, motor vans, motor lorries and chassis of motor vehicles and bodies or tankers built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles. Conjoint reading of section 2(1)(i) and section 3(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the “purchase value of motor vehicle” means not of the value of only the chassis but of the entire composite vehicle (chassis having a body built thereon) entering the State of Maharashtra. All the authorities under the Act may therefore, note this explicit legal position while deciding the matters before them.” 11. Though the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to the said circular also the judgment of the Tribunal, made an attempt to submit that the chassis is not subjected to any tax, we are unable to accept his submission on more than one counts. Though the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to the said circular also the judgment of the Tribunal, made an attempt to submit that the chassis is not subjected to any tax, we are unable to accept his submission on more than one counts. Firstly, the Circular dated 05.10.2001 refers to the motor vehicle and the definition refers to it in the Circular is inclusive of chassis of motor vehicle and further that purchase value of a motor vehicle means not of the value of only the chassis but of the entire composite vehicle i.e. chassis having a body built thereon entering the State of Maharashtra. In our opinion, the Circular in no way leads to the conclusion as it is tried to be drawn by Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in support of his submission. Apart from this, by no stretch of imagination, any Trade Circular issued by an authority in response to representation of either person or the body of person or the representative organizations can substitute the statutory provisions of the law. We are also unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 on the basis of the judgments in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai .v. Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (reported in 2004 STC 152) and in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 1995 (98) STC 330 ). We are also unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (supra). 12. Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 made an attempt in support of his submission that the chassis was consumed for building the bus body upon it and as such was not attracting levy of tax, by stating that the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 has undergone an amendment. He submits that the word “consumption” is substituted by the amendment and prior to the amendment, the only word was “for use or sale” and subsequent to the amendment, the words are substituted and read “for use, consumption or as the case may be, sale therein”. He submits that the word “consumption” is substituted by the amendment and prior to the amendment, the only word was “for use or sale” and subsequent to the amendment, the words are substituted and read “for use, consumption or as the case may be, sale therein”. Thus, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 tried to urge before us that the said amendment came into effect on 25.04.2012 and as such any action in effect to the amendment in the Act will have prospective effect. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 as we have already observed that the definition of “motor vehicle” in the said Act as well as in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is inclusive of the term “chassis of motor vehicle” and in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (supra). The Apex Court, by referring to the word “chassis”, has rejected the submission seeking an exemption of levy of tax. We find that no new facet or process is added to Section 3(1) above by introducing word “consumption” therein for present purposes. Thus the key word of the said Section 3(1) i.e. “use” is kept intact even in the amendment of 2012 and as we have already observed that the word “use” is dealt with in detail by the Apex Court in the case of Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (supra), in our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel Shri A.J. Pathak is devoid of any merits. 13. In view of the above referred considerations, we have no hesitation to say that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts of the matter in proper perspective and as such arrived at an erroneous conclusion. We are of the opinion that the Assessment Officer by considering the purchase value of the chassis, levied the tax by assessment order dated 15.02.2005 and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned in the petition passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Assessment Officer on 15.02.2007 and the order passed by the first appellate authority on 30.05.2005, are confirmed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned in the petition passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Assessment Officer on 15.02.2007 and the order passed by the first appellate authority on 30.05.2005, are confirmed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.