B.N. Sapru, J.
1. In the revision filed by the assessee, the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, by his judgment dated 25th February, 1980, held that brass rivets sold by the assessee were taxed as brasswares under Notification No. ST-II-6628/ X-1012-1972 dated 1st December, 1973 and not as hardware under Notification No. ST-II-6627/X-1012-1972 dated 1st December, 1973. This order of the Additional Judge (Revisions) became final. Subsequently an application before the Sales Tax Tribunal under.Section 22 of the Act was filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, praying that the brass rivets should be taxed as hardware. This application was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 15th May, 1982. In its order, the Tribunal stated that in STR No. 811 of 1980. (S.N. Industries Corporation v. Sales Tax Commissioner) decided on 14th August, 1981 (printed infra), it had been held that brass rivets were not hardware.
2. Aggrieved, the Commissioner, Sales Tax, has filed the present revision.
3. The question framed in the memorandum of revision is follows as
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, was justified to hold that brass rivets are taxable as brasswares under Notification No. ST-II-6628/X-1012-1972 dated 1st December, 1973 and not as hardware under Notification No. ST-II-6627/X-1012-1972 dated 1st December, 1973?
4. In view of the decision mentioned by the Tribunal which is reported in S.N. Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner, Sales Tax (printed at page 306 infra) the commissioner cannot successfully urge, that brass rivets are taxable as hardware. In the alternative, the learned standing counsel wanted to argue that brass rivets were taxable as unclassified items, the assessment year being 1973-74.
5. The question whether brass rivets would be taxable as unclassified items or as brasswares is a very arguable question and cannot be made the subject-matter of proceedings under Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act.
6. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs, which I assess at Rs. 200.