Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Agro Plast vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 13 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2006]143STC422(MP)
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
ORDER
1. This order shall also govern disposal of L.P.A. No. 221 of 2001 as both have been preferred against the common order passed by learned single Judge in M.P. No. 1175 of 1994 preferred at the instance of the present appellant.
2. The question that was raised before the learned single Judge in substance was, whether PVC pipe fittings can be treated as a spare parts or accessories of pumping set so as to fall within entry 12 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The learned single Judge has held that PVC pipe fittings cannot be said to be a spare part.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that other question whether PVC pipe fitting would be an accessory of the pumping set has not at all been considered even though the same was raised before the learned single Judge.
4. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by learned single Judge, we do not know if the said point was at all raised before him. There is no affidavit also filed either by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant or by any officer of the appellant that even this ground was raised but has not been answered by the learned single Judge.
5. During the course of the hearing here, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri P.M. Choudhury has cited number of authorities of the Supreme Court to show what would constitute spare parts and what would constitute an accessory. According to him as has been held in series of judgment of the Supreme Court, atleast PVC fittings should have been held to be an accessory to the pumping set as it adds to the convenience of the working of the pumping set.
6. The perusal of the impugned order shows that reliance has been placed by learned single Judge on a judgment of this Court reported in [1990] 79 STC 289 : (1990) 2 CTJ 426 (Commissioner, Sales Tax, M.P. v. Natural Gas Co. Pvt. Ltd.) in which it has been held that rubber tube connected to gas cylinder would not be a part of gas cylinder.
7. After having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record, we find that PVC pipe cannot be considered to be an accessory to the pumping set. Same is used only for taking water to the ultimate end and this has what has been held by learned single Judge. The impugned order shows that impliedly learned single Judge has also held that this cannot be termed as an accessory to the pumping set. We are in agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned single Judge. Even otherwise the scope of interference in this intra court appeal preferred under clause 10 is limited. Kindly see (1996) MPLJ 1074 (Baddula Lakshmaih v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple). Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be retained in connected L.P.A. No. 221 of 2001.