Karnataka High Court
Pioneer Enterprises vs Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes ... on 26 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2004]134STC138(KAR), 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1435, (2002) 53 KANTLJ(TRIB) 153
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. These revisions are filed against the impugned order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 132 of 1998, 133 of 1998, 134 of 1998 and 135 of 1998. The petitioner is a manufacturer of T.V. antenna. The assessing officer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1987-88 levied the tax at three per cent based on the Government Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(X) dated March 28, 1987, on the total turnover, by his order dated February 13, 1990. However, by an order dated September 1, 1994 under Section 12-A of the KST Act, revised the assessments and levied tax at six per cent based on the Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987. The assessing officer revised the assessment orders for the years 1987-88 to 1991-92 holding that the tax at the rate of six per cent as per the Notification dated FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987 is applicable and that the T.V. antenna do not constitute an item of T.V. component and it is only an accessory.
2. It is pertinent to note that the notification issued under the Sales Tax Act; vide Notification No. FD 46 CSL 86 dated June 20, 1986 discriminatory tax rate was applied to T.V. sets and components manufactured in Karnataka and outside Karnataka. The T.V. sets and components manufactured in Karnataka attracted concessional rate only at two per cent and again revised to three per cent as per Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(X) dated March 28, 1987 and from time to time revised and was fixed at four per cent vide Notification No. FD 32 CSL 86(27) dated March 26, 1986. Under section 5 of the KST Act, 1957 by Notification No. FD 32 CSL 86(27) dated March 26, 1986 in respect of Schedule items the sales tax at the rate of four per cent was imposed. Again by an amended Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987 the sales tax imposed under Notification No. FD 32 CSL 86(27) dated March 26, 1986 was increased to six per cent in Solidaire India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in [1994] 92 STC 278 ; (1991) 35 KLJ Tribunal Suppl. 246, this Court has struck down the Notification No. FD 32 CSL 86(27) dated March 26, 1986 levying differential rates of sales tax for the goods manufactured in Karnataka and outside Karnataka as being illegal.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that uniform rate of sales tax on the antenna, as a T.V. component should be at the rate of three per cent and levy of tax at six per cent is illegal, in alternate contends that T.V. antenna is only accessory and it has to be levied at four per cent.
4. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Appeals-cum-the first appellate authority upheld the order made by the assessing officer under Section 12-A of the KST Act holding that the T.V. antenna is an accessory and that the Notification No. FD 32 CSL 86 (27) dated March 26, 1986 read with Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987 is applicable and the rate of tax is to be at six per cent. Being aggrieved, the appeals were filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the view of the assessing officer that the T.V. antenna is only an accessory and not a component of the T.V. set and the rate of tax should be at six per cent and not four per cent as contended and dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present revisions are filed under Section 23(1) of the KST Act.
5. The following questions of law emerge from the disputed contentions raised in these proceedings :
"(1) Whether the T.V. antenna is an inseparable component of T.V. or an accessory ?
(2) Whether the assessing officer was right in levying sales tax at six per cent based on the Notification No. FD 32 CSL 87(V) March 28, 1987 ?"
The counsel for the petitioners relied on the long list of the following decisions to impress upon the point that the T.V. antenna is not an accessory and a component :
(1) The decision of the Supreme Court in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh .
(2) The decision of the Supreme Court in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh . (3) The decision of the Supreme Court in British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka . (4) The decision of the Supreme Court in Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut . (5) The decision of the Supreme Court in Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras .
(6) The decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. and Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Orient Paper Mills reported in [1990] 77 STC 203. (7) The decision of this Court in N.A.V. Naidu v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore reported in [1970] 25 STC 381. (8) The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of ACME Plastic Industries v. State of Maharashtra reported in [1981] 48 STC 29. (9) The decision of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Dunlop India Ltd. reported in [1993] 90 STC 379.
The aforesaid decisions do not deal directly with question whether antenna is an accessory or a component of T.V. but deal with the concept of an accessory in respect of different goods involved in manufacturing process.
6. As could be seen from the aforesaid decisions in order to categorise the product as an accessory or component it is essential to see, whether the product is an essential integral part of the final product and without which the final product is not capable of use, then the item is held to be an accessory, when it is used only for obtaining enhanced efficiency of performance of the main product and does not form an essential integral part of the main product it is an accessory. In the light of the said proposition, if, we consider the case on hand, a T.V. antenna can be considered only an accessory not a component of T.V. set, since the T.V. set has multi-purpose use. The antenna is used for catching the transmission waves and reproducing the audio sounds and visual pictures. But the T.V. sets could also be used for playing the video cassettes, compact disc, etc., while in such a use there is no necessity of the antenna. The T.V. sets do have an in-built antenna capacity to catch the waves. But in order to have higher efficiency performance and to have the picture clarity the antenna is used as an accessory when the T.V. sets are used for the purpose of viewing the relay programs. In that view, we find that there is no error committed by the assessing officer or appellate authority in holding that the T.V. antenna is an accessory of a T.V. set.
7. In so far as the Notification No. FD 46 CSL 86 dated June 20, 1986 the levy of concessional rate has been held to be illegal and the decision of the Supreme Court in British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka has held that such discriminatory levy of tax is illegal and also directed that subsequent to the passing of the notification, it is not permissible for the sales tax authorities to recover the excess of sales tax at the normal rates over the concessional rates. However, the ratio of the said decision has no application to the facts of the case, since the levy of tax in the present case is covered by the Notification No. FD 34 CSL 86(27) dated March 26, 1986 read with the Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987, whereunder the T.V. sets constitute an accessory and therefore, imposition of revised levy of six per cent tax is correct and legal. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions formulated above in the affirmative.
Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed.