ORDER : These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 13.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby Trade Tax Revision Nos.863 of 2000, 201 of 2001 and 216 of 2001 filed by the respondent-Revenue have been allowed, orders passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal Nos.206 of 1999, 100 of 2000 and 102 of 2000 set aside and those passed by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority affirmed. 2. The appellant-company carries on business of manufacture and sale of Oxygen Gas. For the assessment years 1994-1995, 1995-1996, the assessing officer assessed the appellant-company to payment of sales tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act disallowing the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-company that service charges collected by it in connection with cleaning and testing of cylinders used for filling oxygen gas was not exigible to sales tax. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority which were dismissed confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appellant then preferred second appeals before the U.P. Trade Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, which were heard and allowed by the Tribunal in terms of its order dated 25.02.2000 in respect of assessment year 1994-1995 and 26.08.2000 in respect of assessment year 1995-1996. The Tribunal took the view that the charges collected by the appellant-company from the customers for cleaning and testing of cylinders used for filling the oxygen gas was not a part of the sales turnover of the appellant and hence not liable to be taxed. The High Court has in Trade Tax Revision Nos.863 of 2000, 201 of 2001 and 216 of 2001 reversed the view of the Tribunal and restored that taken by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority. The High Court has on an interpretation of the provisions of the Act and in particular on an interpretation of the expression "turnover" appearing in Section 2(i) of the U.P.Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") held that sums charged by the appellant-company from the purchasers towards cleaning and testing of the cylinder used for filling oxygen gas was in fact a part of its taxable turnover as the process of cleaning and testing of cylinder would tantamount to the dealer doing something in respect of the goods sold within the meaning of the expression "turnover’ as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. The High Court has relying upon the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Shri A.B. Shah and Ors. [JT 1996 (5) SC 128], The Chief Inspector of Mines and Another v. Lala Karam Chand Thapar Etc. [ (1962) 1 SCR 9 ] and M/s Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer VII Circle, Hyderabad [ AIR 1977 SC 1459 ] held that the definition of the term "turnover" was wide enough to include the process of cleaning of the cylinders in the case at hand for purposes of maintaining the purity of oxygen gas filled in the same. So also the High Court has relying upon the decision of this Court in Totaram v. State of Bombay [ AIR 1954 SC 496 ] held that the expression "in respect of" has a wider connotation and has to be accordingly interpreted. Reliance was also placed by the High Court upon its decision in Har Prasad v. Hans Ram [AIR 1966 Allahabad 124] where the High Court has interpreted the term "in respect of" appearing in Section 2(i) of the Act in its widest connotation so as to include even a document which was prepared before the proceedings started in a court of law but was projected or given in evidence in the proceedings subsequently. The High Court has relied upon South India Carbonic Gas Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ (2004) 135 STC 541 ] to hold that in a situation where a dealer cleans or tests cylinders before filling them with carbonic gas the charges recovered for such testing of cylinders was liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the dealer. 3. Appearing for the appellant-company, Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned senior counsel strenuously argued that the High Court had fallen in error in holding that the expression "anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold" would extend to cleaning and testing process undertaken by the dealer also. It was submitted that the process of cleaning of cylinders or testing the same did not involve anything done to goods themselves which in the case at hand was oxygen gas. It was argued by Mr. It was submitted that the process of cleaning of cylinders or testing the same did not involve anything done to goods themselves which in the case at hand was oxygen gas. It was argued by Mr. Agarwal that in order that "anything done to the goods" becomes chargeable to tax it was necessary that something was done to the goods themselves and not something done to the container in which the goods may be eventually sold. 4. The argument on the first blush appears attractive but does not in our opinion survive closer scrutiny. We say so for two precise reasons. Firstly, because the expression used in Section 2(i) of the Act which defines turnover is not "anything done by the dealer to the goods sold." The expression used is "anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods". If one were to accept Mr. Agarwal’s contention that the legislature intended the tax to become chargeable only in case the dealer "does something to the goods", it could say so. Nothing prevented the legislature from providing in specific terms that "anything done by the dealer to the goods" alone would constitute taxable turnover within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act. The legislature has in our view purposely used a wider expression by employing the words "in respect of the goods" in Section 2(i) of the Act. The expression "in respect of" has been given a wider interpretation by the High Courts in the cases to which we have made a reference earlier to include things done not only to goods but things done in respect of the goods. There is no manner of doubt that the cleaning of the cylinders and testing the same for purpose of safety etc. is only to ensure that the goods being sold are pure and maintain the standards that are statutorily prescribed for the same. Anything which the dealer does to ensure to compliance with that legal obligation must therefore fall within the expression "anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods." 5. Secondly, because the obligation to clean the cylinders and to put them to test as stipulated under the Oxygen Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 is squarely upon the licensee under the Rules. That obligation in the case at hand is upon the appellant company. Secondly, because the obligation to clean the cylinders and to put them to test as stipulated under the Oxygen Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 is squarely upon the licensee under the Rules. That obligation in the case at hand is upon the appellant company. The Rules stipulate that before filling oxygen gas in the cylinders the licensee must carry out hydrostatic/hydrostatic stretch test of every cylinder and only after the cylinder is thoroughly cleaned by some detergent and washed with approved solvents can it be used for filling the gas. This is evident from Rule 41 and 42 which reads as under: "41. Inspection of cylinders before carrying out hydrostatic/hydrostatic stretch test:- (1) Prior to carrying out hydrostatic/hydrostatic stretch test, every cylinder shall be thoroughly cleaned by steam cleaning or washing out with approved solvents. Where the interior of the cylinder is affected by rust or other foreign matter it shall be cleaned by one of the following methods namely: (a) approved blasting, rotary wire brushing; (b) burn out treatment carried out in a furnace at a temperature not exceeding 300-C for a period of not exceeding one hour after which all free rusts and any other foreign matter shall be removed by steam cleaning or washing with approved solvents. (2) The cylinders after cleaning shall be visually examined externally and as far as practicable internally for surface defect in accordance with the Code of practice issued by the Indian Standards Institution or any other Code approved in writing by the Chief Controller. 42. Hydrostatic/hydrostatic stretch test (1) For cylinders used for permanent gases, high pressure liquefiable gases and all toxic and corrosive gases: (i) The cylinders shall be subjected to hydrostatic stretch test in accordance with IS: 5844. The test pressure applied to the cylinder shall be retained for a period of not less than thirty seconds. (ii) The permanent stretch by the cylinder due to application or test pressure shall not exceed the following limits namely:- (a) In case of cylinders the below 20 liters water capacity for non corrosive gases 10 per cent of total stretch suffered during the test (b) In other cases 10 per cent of the stretch suffered during the test or 1/5000th of the original volume of the cylinder whichever is less. (2) For cylinders for low pressure non-corrosive liquefiable gases: (i) The cylinder shall be subjected to hydrostatic test in accordance with IS : 5844 by non jacket method except that the volu-metric changes during the test need not be measured. (ii) The test pressure shall be retained for a period of not less than 30 seconds. Any reduction in pressure noticed during this retention period of any leakage, visible bulge or deformation shall be treated as a case of failure in the test. (3) As soon as the test is completed, the cylinder shall be thoroughly dried internally and shall be clearly stamped on the neck and with marks and figures indicating the person by whom the test has been carried out and the date of test, Code mark of the person by whom the test has been carried out shall be registered with the Chief Controller." 6. Mr. Agarwal did not dispute and in our opinion rightly so that the obligation to clean the cylinders and to subject them to the prescribed tests under the relevant rules lie entirely upon the appellant company. There is indeed no escape for the appellant company from the said obligation if it has to manufacture and sell oxygen for otherwise the breach of the rules may itself result in cancellation of the licence granted to it. If that be so, the question of the appellant charging anything from the customers towards service rendered to the customer does not arise. One could appreciate a situation where the manufacturer of the gas has no legal obligation to clean the cylinders or put them to test before filling the gas in the same. In such a situation one could well argue that in the absence of any legal obligation upon the manufacturer to clean and test the cylinders, the customer is free to perform that part of the exercise on its own or have it performed from some other quarter. One could then contend that if the customer does not discharge his part of the obligation and asks the manufacturer to do so on his behalf, the manufacturer may be undertaking an exercise on payment of service charge not otherwise a part of the sale transaction. That however is not the position in the case at hand. One could then contend that if the customer does not discharge his part of the obligation and asks the manufacturer to do so on his behalf, the manufacturer may be undertaking an exercise on payment of service charge not otherwise a part of the sale transaction. That however is not the position in the case at hand. Here the obligation to clean and test the cylinders rests entirely upon the manufacturer, in the light of the rules. There is no way the appellant-manufacturer, in the case at hand can avoid to do what the rules enjoin upon it. Such being the position, the process of cleaning and testing cannot be seen as a process independent of the sales transaction by which the appellant sells gas after it has subjected the cylinder to prescribed cleaning and testing process. The Tribunal was in that view in error in reversing the orders passed by the Assessing officer and the first Appellate Authority. The High Court in our opinion committed no mistake in reversing the view taken by the Tribunal and restoring that passed by the first Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer. 7. In the result, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.