1. This order shall also dispose of M. C. C. No. 75 of 1984 (Nanalal Odhavji & Co., Indore v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P.) the parties being the same.
2. Both these references under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 has been referred for our answer to the following question of law:
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the bailing hoops are iron plates sold in the same form in which they are directly produced by the rolling mill and are therefore declared goods as defined in Sub-section (e) of Section 2 and covered by entry 5 of Part I of Schedule II of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 liable to be taxed at 2 per cent up to 30th June, 1966 and 3 per cent thereafter ?
3. In M. C. C. No. 71 of 1984 the question relates for the assessment years 1969 to 1970 Diwali to Diwali. In M. C. C. No. 75 of 1984 the assessment year relates to 1965-66 Diwali to Diwali.
4. Facts giving rise to these petitions as per the statement of the case received, may be stated, in brief, thus : Applicant-assessee M/s. Nanalal Odhavji & Co. is engaged in the business of bailing hoops and bardanas at Indore. He was assessed to tax for the period from 25th October, 1965 to 12th November, 1966 and from 10th November, 1966 to 30th October, 1970 by the Sales Tax Officer, Indore, Circle-II. The tax on bailing hoops was assessed under the residuary schedule whereas the applicant-assessee's contention was that it should be assessed as declared goods. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who by his orders dated 2nd June, 1973 and 15th March, 1973 remanded the appeal for the first period but the contention in respect of bailing hoops was not accepted in the appeal for the second period and the appeal was rejected.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed a common order in respect of both these appeals on 15th May, 1974 by which the contention of the assessee that bailing hoops are declared goods was rejected.
6. It is in these circumstances that at the instance of the assessee this reference has come up to this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Ladha as also Shri S. R. Joshi, learned Government Advocate, counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the question referred to above has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the department in the decision reported in  53 STC 120 (FB) (Govindji Jamunadas, Gwalior v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P.) wherein it has been clearly held that iron hoops are declared goods. Iron hoops, i. e., steel strips fall within the description of rolled steel sections; that the process of joining of strips and painting them do not bring about a substantial change in identity. Thus, it cannot be said that the strips are transformed into a new commercial commodity and cease to be in the same form.
8. In view of this Full Bench decision, which is binding on us, we are of opinion that the question referred to above has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
9. Our answer to the question referred to above is that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the bailing hoops are iron plates sold in the same form in which they are directly produced by the rolling mill and are therefore declared goods as defined in Sub-section (e) of Section 2 and covered by entry 5 of Part I of Schedule II of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 liable to be taxed at 2 per cent up to 30th June, 1966 and 3 per cent thereafter up to 1st October, 1978 after which there is an amendment as was submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.