ORDER: The present Revision came to be filed assailing the Order, dated 15.04.2002, against the proceedings of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Vijayawada in T.A.Nos.684, 685, 686, 687 and 688 of 2001, on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. For better appreciation, the parties hereinafter be referred to as Dealer and Assessing Officer. 2. The Assessing Officer has passed an Order dated 19.07.2000 for the Assessment Year 1998-1999 (CST) directing the dealer to pay Sales Tax @ 12% per annum, assessing the following turnover for the year 1998 – 1999 under C.S.T. Act. The same is as under :- Total turnover Rs.6,27,08,452.00 Exempted turnover Rs. 84,50,491.00 Net Turnover Rs.5,42,57,961.00 The net turnover of Rs.5,42,57,961/- is taxable at 12% Tax due Rs. 65,10,955.00 Tax paid Rs. 10,93,654.00 Balance (-) Rs. 54,17,000.00 3. The Dealer was called upon by a show-cause notice to file “C” Declaration Forms for the turnover of Rs.5,42,57,961.00 to get concessional rate of Tax @ 4%, for sales recorded on computer paper Nepal for Rs.47,95,311.00 and Export sales of computer paper for Rs.36,55,180.00 within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice otherwise, the entire turnover would be subjected to tax at 12%. 4. The main contention of the dealer is that the computer stationery would fall under electronic goods and therefore the interstate sales of computer paper, effected by them is taxable at the concessional rate of 2% only in view of G.O.Ms.No.521 Rev. (CT.II), dated 20.07.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.140 Rev. C.T. II dated 10.03.2000. According to which, Inter-State sales of electronic goods up to 31.12.1999 is taxable @ 2% irrespective of filing of 'C' Declaration Forms and Memo No.50959 dated 11.08.1998 has no application to their case. Relying upon the judgment in Andhra Pradesh Computer Stationery Manufacturers Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1998) 26 STJ-184, it is urged that the Government has no power to issue proceedings clarifying rate of tax vide Memo dated 11.08.1998, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B. Arun Kumar Trading Private Limited Vs. C.T.O., 27 APGSTJ-352. With the above said objections, the Dealer requested to drop proposed assessment. 5. The Assessing Officer has directed to pay tax as indicated above, stating that G.Os relied upon by the Dealer have to be considered only, when the computer stationery falls within the meaning of electronic goods. C.T.O., 27 APGSTJ-352. With the above said objections, the Dealer requested to drop proposed assessment. 5. The Assessing Officer has directed to pay tax as indicated above, stating that G.Os relied upon by the Dealer have to be considered only, when the computer stationery falls within the meaning of electronic goods. Since, the same is treated as falling within the meaning of 'paper', the G.Os relied on by the dealer need not be considered, more so, as the dealer has filed details for export sales of computer paper and sales of computer paper to Nepal, the details of which, are found in order and accordingly exemption is allowed on a turnover of Rs.84,50,491/-. The Assessing Officer directed the assessee to pay the tax @ 12%. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the Dealer has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, (C.T.) Vijayawada. The Appellate Authority after considering the material on record held that “when a particular commodity is classified by the Government to fall under a specified entry in the schedules, it cannot be treated differently under APGST Act and under CST Act. Even though G.O.Ms.No.521 Rev. Dt.20.07.98 issued under CST Act contemplates reduction in rate of tax upto 31-12-99, there being no change in the reduced rate of tax under CST Act, it cannot give protection to the commodity classified as other than Electronic Goods” and thus held that the computer stationery falls under Entry 19 of the APGST Act, meaning thereby that all kinds of paper do not come under the purview of Entry 38 of Schedule-I and accordingly held as under:- “the assessing officer has rightly held that the rate of tax of the computer stationery in accordance with the clarification issued by the Government” and rejected the contention of the Dealer that the sale of finished product is to be considered as a works contract and the inter-state transactions of computer stationery though made on the basis of prior orders is liable to tax as inter-state sales under CST Act. Holding so, dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the Appellate Authority, the Dealer preferred the above appeal cases before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Two issues emerged for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.688 of 2001. They are as under:- "8. The two points for consideration which arise in these appeals are: 1. Holding so, dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the Appellate Authority, the Dealer preferred the above appeal cases before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Two issues emerged for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.688 of 2001. They are as under:- "8. The two points for consideration which arise in these appeals are: 1. Whether the disputed turnovers relating to the inter-state sales and first sales in the state of computer stationery which include both blank and printed stationery are liable to be taxed at the reduced rate as per the relevant Government Orders and not as per Entry 19 of the VI schedule to APGST Act @ 12% as held by the lower authorities. 2. Whether the part of the disputed turnover relating to printed computers stationery relates to works contract and not exigible to tax. 8. After considering the material, the Tribunal by its Order, dated 15.04.2002 set aside the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Vijayawada by relying upon the Judgment in "AP Computer Stationery Manufacturers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh". 9. Further, relying on the G.O.Ms.No.520 and 521 and basing upon the memo issued by the Government, the Tribunal held that the Government has intended to give benefit of concessional rate of tax to all such electronic goods which are specified by Electronic Commission to the electronic goods. Applying G.O.Ms.Nos.864, 262, 160, 653 and 204, directed the lower authorities to levy tax on the disputed turnover as per reduced tax under these G.O.s, for the relevant assessment years. Further, held that the orders of the assessing authority and First Appellate Authority levying tax on the disputed turnover at 12% falling under the items 19 of the VI schedule as bad in law and consequently set aside the assessment by allowing Tax Appeal Nos.684, 685, 686, 687 and 688 of 2001. The Tribunal also up held that the printed computer stationery relating to MICR Cheque, Bill Books, Weigh Bills, Letter Heads, Share Certificates etc., are not exigible to tax under the APGST Act. 10. Assailing the Order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.688 of 2001, the present Revision is filed. The issue in the instant case revolves around the order passed by the High Court in Andhra Pradesh Computer [cited supra] and the G.Os issued by the Government from time to time. 11. 10. Assailing the Order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.688 of 2001, the present Revision is filed. The issue in the instant case revolves around the order passed by the High Court in Andhra Pradesh Computer [cited supra] and the G.Os issued by the Government from time to time. 11. It is to be noted here that a Division Bench of this Court in the above said judgment, directed the Government to take a decision clarifying the meaning of expression ‘electronic goods’ and notify the same within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said judgment. But, for reasons best known to them, no clarification was given pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the above case. The High Court also directed the Government to clarify whether the authority should follow the list prepared by the Electronic Commission with regard to G.O.Ms.No.864, dated 07.09.1993 in the same manner, as it is issued without such clarification in G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 20.07.1988 substituted by G.O.Ms.No.864. In the absence of any clarification being given, the Tribunal was left with no other option except to analyze the G.Os issued vis-à-vis findings given by the High Court. 12. As seen from the record, earlier, the Government in order to encourage Electronic Industry, issued G.O.Ms.No.716, dated 27.04.1984 reducing the rate of tax to 4%, in respect of goods covered by Item 38(v) of the 1st schedule. Later, the said G.O. was rescinded and in its place G.O.Ms.No.721, dated 01.07.1985 was issued reducing the rate of tax. The said G.O. was quashed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.He-Beam Electronic Private Limited & Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) 7 APSTJ 171. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 20.07.1988 taxing 2% for sale of Electronic goods. Another G.O.Ms.No.521 came to be issued, imposing concessional tax at 2% in respect of Central Sales Tax Act. These G.Os. were considered by the High Court in the judgment referred to above and held that the Computer Stationery falls under Item 19 of the VI schedule dealing with paper of all kinds and further held that the same does not fall under Entry 38 dealing with Electronic Systems, instruments, equipment etc. It was held that the Computer Stationery cannot be considered as part of accessories of such electronic equipment nor can it be considered as a material thereto as mentioned in Entry 38. It was held that the Computer Stationery cannot be considered as part of accessories of such electronic equipment nor can it be considered as a material thereto as mentioned in Entry 38. The same is as under:- “12. Doubts were expressed as to the scope of 12 items given in this G.O. because each item was in general terms. Government, therefore, issued a memo No. 23718/CT.II 2/89 dated 1.6.1989. "The attention of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is invited to the references cited and he is informed that the Government have decided that the list of Electronic items prepared by the Electronics Commission may be followed for the purpose of concessional rate of tax on Electronic Goods ordered in G.O.Ms.No.520 and 521 Revenue, dated 20.7.1988. The Commissioner is requested to issue necessary instructions to the Sub-ordinate officers in this regard under Section 42-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 13. Consequently, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a circular stating as follows: "Several representations have been received from the trade requesting to clarify the specific items which falls under the classifications, mentioned in the G.O. first cited. A copy of the Government Memo third cited is enclosed along with a copy of the list prepared by the Electronics Commission duly authenticated." 14. Earlier, the A.P. Sales Tax Journal has published item classification guidelines to manufacturers given by the Electronic Commission to understand the scope of G.O.Ms. No.721. The same classification was now used by the Government in the memo for explaining the scope and meaning of electronic goods. A reading of the classification indicates that for instance, the first item electronic goods in the G.O. was expanded to include several items such as; radio receivers, tape recorders, telephone answering systems etc. We find that 12 items serially listed in the classification correspond to the 12 items given in the G.Os. The 13th item in the classification is electronic components, a list of which is given. The 14th item is parts, for which also there is a list. The 15th item is electronic materials and chemicals. No list is given but it only states "give details". The 16th item is miscellaneous electronic item and 16.6 is "computer stationery, paper tape, punching cards, printing paper, ribbons etc. specified." 13. The 14th item is parts, for which also there is a list. The 15th item is electronic materials and chemicals. No list is given but it only states "give details". The 16th item is miscellaneous electronic item and 16.6 is "computer stationery, paper tape, punching cards, printing paper, ribbons etc. specified." 13. The other issue left for consideration by the High Court in the above said judgment is, whether the Computer Stationery would fall under materials for which no list is given in the Classification of the Electronic Commission? 14. After dealing with the Circulars and G.Os issued, the Court in Para 18 of the said judgment, held as under:- “18. Both the Department as well as the trade have understood the meaning of the expression electronic goods with reference to the classification given by the Electronics Commission. The concession itself was initiated as a protection to the electronic industry of which the consumables and peripherals were treated as part for the purpose of such encouragement. If the concession is withdrawn by a change of opinion with reference to the meaning of the word 'electronic goods', there will be an unintentional discouragement for the production of consumables and peripherals in the competitive trade and the impact will fall on the consumers if not on the local dealers. But the fact remains that the memo clarifying the meaning of 'electronic goods' has been omitted to be issued with reference to G.O.Ms. No. 864 issued under APGST Act. It is not clear whether the omission of the memo clarifying the meaning of "electronic goods" is intentional or accidental. Since the concession is still available under the C.S.T. Act by the same definition, we are of the considered opinion that the Government should consider whether the omission to reissue the memo clarifying the meaning of the expression "electronic goods" with reference to G.O.Ms. No. 864 is accidental or intentional in the light of the discussion referred to above. Hence, in the interests of justice and certainty, we direct the Government to take a decision and notify the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 15. No. 864 is accidental or intentional in the light of the discussion referred to above. Hence, in the interests of justice and certainty, we direct the Government to take a decision and notify the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 15. From the judgments of the Division Bench, it is clear that the Government was to take a decision clarifying the meaning of expression ‘Electronic Goods’ with reference to G.O.Ms.No.864 within a fixed period of time, but, nothing has happened till date. The Division Bench categorically observed that the consumable peripherals for the use of the equipment, was given a concessional rate of tax under G.O.Ms.Nos.520 & 521. 16. It is also to be noted here that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 19.05.1995, which is also on the same terms of G.O.Ms.No.864, giving the same concessional rate, which was reduced to 3.5%, in view of G.O.Ms.No.653, dated 31.07.1997. Later, G.O.Ms.No.204, dated 28.03.1998 came to be issued extending the benefit of reduced rate at 3.5% from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. But, it is to be noted here that G.O.Ms.No.252 was not rescinded. The intention of the Government appears to give benefit of reduced tax for sale of electronic goods. The Memo dated 01.06.1989 makes it clear that the list of Electronic items prepared by the Electronics Commission covers various items and the intention was to give benefit of concessional rate of tax to all such Electronic goods which are specified by Electronics Commission to be Electronic goods. In the said list prepared by the Electronic Commission, Computer Stationery finds place at 16.6, under the Heading 16 relating to miscellaneous electronic items. 17. It is also to be noted here that there is no reference to Entry 38 of List-I in any of the G.Os. i.e. G.O.Ms.Nos.864, 252, 653 and 204 and also in the Memo dated 01.06.1989 as referred to in G.O.116 dated 27.04.1984. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that though no clarification is given by the Government and to the judgment in Andhra Pradesh Computer Stationery [cited supra], but a reading of the Memo dated 01.06.1989 and the G.Os issued would make it clear that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of reduced rate of tax and accordingly directed the authorities to levy tax on the disputed turnovers as per the reduced rate of tax under these G.Os. for the relevant Assessment Years. 18. Having regard to the discussion referred to above, we find no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal though at first blush the argument of State appeared to be appealing. Hence, the Revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.