Govinda Bhat, J.
1. This is a revision petition under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act, preferred by the assessee and it relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The petitioner was assessed for the year ending 30th June, 1965, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 84,728.58 by assessment order dated 11th October, 1965. The said taxable turnover included a turnover of Rs. 43,700 representing the sale of 'jute hand-bags' on which tax was levied at one per cent. taking the view that 'jute hand-bags' come under the category of 'gunny bags' and as such liable to be taxed at the rate applicable to the goods specified in the second proviso to section 5(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessing authority, taking a different view, took proceedings under section 12-A of the Act to reopen the assessment and assess the turnover of Rs. 43,700 at two per cent. under section 5(1) of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the goods in question are 'jute hand-bags' and they were provided with a handle and that 'jute hand-bags' of the type dealt with by the assessee do not fall within the term 'gunny bags'. Therefore, he reassessed the petitioner on the turnover of Rs. 43,700 at two per cent. The matter was taken ultimately to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal has agreed with the view taken by the assessing authority. It has come to the conclusion that the goods in question, namely, hand-bags made of jute cloth are not 'gunny bags' as understood in trade and commerce.
2. The sole question for determination in this revision petition is, whether hand-bags manufactured out of jute cloth come within the meaning of the expression 'gunny bags' under the second proviso to section 5(1) of the Act. Sri Sarangan, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the expression 'gunny bags' found in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 has not been defined and since it is undisputed that the bags manufactured by the petitioner are made of jute, they satisfy the definition of 'gunny bags'. He also invited our attention to the observations made by the Tribunal to the effect that by the term 'gunny bags' what is understood is the big gunny bags in which foodgrains, sugar etc., are filled, weighing roughly a quintal or 100 pounds. With that observation of the Tribunal, we are not inclined to agree. In trade and commerce, not only big gunny bags are used, but small gunny bags are used, say for packing cement or fertilisers. Even those small gunny bags would come within the the meaning of the term 'gunny bags' found in the second proviso to section 5(1) of the Act. But in the instant case the articles in question are really hand-bags and they are provided with a handle though the bag is made of jute cloth. Such hand-bags are not used for packing but only to carry articles by hand. In trade and commerce such hand-bags are not called as gunny bags. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the assessing authority in his order made under section 12-A of the Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
3. No costs.
4. Petition dismissed.