Madhya Pradesh High Court
Annapurna Industries Unit-Ii vs Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes ... on 29 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2006]143STC426(MP)
Author: A.M. Sapre
Bench: A.M. Sapre
ORDER A.M. Sapre, J.
1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of other two writs being W.P. No. 9471 of 2003 and W.P. No. 166 of 2003 because in all these writs, the question involved is common.
2. In substance, the short question that arises for consideration in these writs is, whether PVC pipes used in pumping sets having 10 H.P. or less is and/or can be regarded as an accessory of pumping sets so as to entitle the petitioner--a dealer to claim exemption from payment of sales tax as contemplated in entry 89 of the Schedule I of Commercial Tax Act. In other words, the question that arises for consideration is, whether PVC pipes used in pumping sets can be held as accessories of the pump and if so, whether they are exempt from payment of commercial tax ?
3. The commercial tax authorities have taken a view in the impugned orders against the petitioner and have held that the PVC pipes are not accessories of the pumping sets and hence, no exemption can be extended to such item. It is this view, which is assailed by the petitioner in these petitions.
4. Heard Shri YI Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri HY Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
5. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the view taken by the commercial tax authorities referred supra is not correct, the submission of learned counsel for the State was to its contrary. According to learned counsel, the issue sought to be raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the two decisions of this Court, reported in [1990] 79 STC 289 : (1990) 2 CTJ 426 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Natural Gas Co. Pvt. Ltd.) and (2001) 34 VKN 415 (Gaurav Agro Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax).
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am of the considered opinion, that the petitions have no merit and hence, they are liable to be dismissed resulting in upholding of the view taken by the commercial tax authorities and so the impugned orders.
7. As rightly urged by the learned Counsel for the State, the issue involved in this writ is already decided by this Court in two cases, referred supra, wherein more or less similar question has arisen. So far as the case of Natural Gas Co. is concerned, the question arose as to whether rubber tube used in gas cylinder can be treated as spare part of gas cylinder. It was held that it is essential part of the cylinder because the same is used for supplying the gas from cylinder. Relying upon this view, this Court in the case of Gaurav Agro* (2001) 34 VKN 415 held that PVC pipe used in pumping set also cannot be held to be a spare part but an essential part of the set. The decision rendered in Gaurav Agro* (2001) 34 VKN 415 was later upheld in appeal by the division Bench.
8. In my opinion, thus, the issue involved in this writ is covered by the decision rendered in the case of Gaurav Agro* (2001) 34 VKN 415 and since, the same was later upheld in appeal by the division Bench, it is binding on this Court. In other words, this Court cannot take any other view than the one already taken by the single Bench in the case of Gaurav Agro* (2001) 34 VKN 415, which was later upheld in appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement attack on the view taken by this Court in Gaurav Agro (2001) 34 VKN 415 and contended that it does not lay down correct law. He also submitted that in any event, the question involved in Gaurav Agro (2001) 34 VKN 415 was, whether a PVC pipe is a spare part of pumping set ? Wherein the question involved in this case is, whether PVC pipe is an accessory of pumping set ? In my considered view, once the finding is recorded that PVC pipe is an essential part of the pumping set, the petitioner cannot succeed because in such case, the commodity is neither a spare part, nor an accessory of the pumping set.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had cited Mehra Bros v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer , Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Union Carbide India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 98 STC 1 (SC) : 32 CTJ 113. I have gone through the ratio of these cases. In my view, in these cases, the commodity was different and secondly, in some cases the general principle of accessory was explained. So these cases do not help the petitioner. Learned counsel was unable to cite any authority of the Supreme Court or that of any High Court interpreting the very commodity which fell for interpretation in this case which supports his submission.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged in W.P. No. 165 of 2003 that no interest could be levied on the petitioner by the assessing authority looking to the facts involved in the case. Learned counsel for the State placing reliance on Section 27 of the Act contended that power to impose interest being available with the taxing authorities, no fault can be found in imposition of interest. I am inclined to accept what is urged by the learned counsel for the State. It cannot be disputed that in a taxing statute what is required to be seen is whether there exists power to impose an interest on delayed payment of tax in accordance with the provision of the Act ? If under these circumstance, the taxing authorities have imposed interest on the petitioner then it cannot be faulted with being against the provision of Act, or de hors the Act, or without authority of law.
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these writs. As a consequence, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
No costs.