Supreme Court of India
Mehra Bros vs Joint Commercial Officer, Madras on 14 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1017, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 61, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1017, 1991 (1) SCC 514, (1990) 4 JT 750 (SC), 1990 (4) JT 750, 1991 ALL TAXJ 447, 1991 BRLJ 76, (1995) 61 ECR 204, (1991) 51 ELT 173, (1991) 80 STC 233
PETITIONER:
MEHRA BROS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER, MADRAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1990
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1017 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 61
1991 SCC (1) 514 JT 1990 (4) 750
1990 SCALE (2)1063
ACT:
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959: Section 3(3) and
item no. 3 Schedule I--Car Seat Covers--Whether articles
adapted generally as parts and accessories of motor Vehi-
cles.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant is a registered dealer under Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act 1 of 1959. The appellant has been
carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of Auto
seats covers, upholstery materials etc. in leather, plastic
cloth and other materials. The taxable turnover for the year
1971-72 was Rs.2,61,812.74 and for 1972-73 it was
Rs.1,31,650.05. The claimed car seat cover manufactured &
supplied by him to the customers to be chargeable to Sales
tax at 3/2 per cent. The assessing authorities levied sales
Tax under section 3(3) read with Item 3 of Schedule 1st of
the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act at 13% and taxed ac-
cordingly. This was upheld on appeal by the Assistant Com-
missioner and on further revision by the Appellate Tribunal
and also by the High Court. The legality thereof questioned
in these appeals.
The appellant contended that car seat covers upholstery
cannot be considered to be accessories to automobiles. Since
such of those accessories which would be convenient for use,
for the use of the motor vehicles as a whole for an effec-
tive use of the vehicles and not as a part of such vehicle
are exigible to tax at 13%. Reliance was placed on the
following judgments.
Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka, [1983] 54 STC 308;
Commissioner, Sales tax, U.P. v. Free India Cycle Indus-
tries, [1970] 26 STC 428 and Shadi Cycle Industries v.
Commissioner of Salestax, U.P., [1971] 27 STC 56.
The respondent contended that the accessories for motor
vehicles must be those that aid or an addition for conven-
ience or use of the motor vehicle and they may also be
supplementary or secondary to any one or all the parts of
the motor car even without effectiveness the use of the
entire motor vehicle, and reliance was placed on Khetty
Traders v. State of Madras, [1973] 32 STC 346; State of
Madras v. E.A.N. Meerakasim Carnatic Seat Company, [1973] 32
STC 463; S.M. Brothers v.
62
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad
Division-I, Hyderabad & Ors., [1977] 39 STC 182 and The
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayesh (India) Agencies, [1984]
57 STC. 128.
Our the question: Whether car seat covers and articles
adapted generally as parts and accessories of the motor
vehicle.
While dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: 1. The correct test would be whether the article
or articles in question would be an adjunct or an accompani-
ment or addition for the convenient use of another part of
the vehicle or adds to the beauty, elegance or comfort for
the use of the motor vehicle or a supplementary or secondary
to the main or primary importance. [66F]
2. Whether an article or part is an accessory cannot be
decided with reference to its necessity to its effective use
of the vehicle as a whole. General adaptability may be
relevant but may not by itself be conclusive. [66G]
3. Another test may be whether a particular article or
articles or parts, can he said to be available for sale in
an automobile market or shops or places of manufacture; if
the dealer says it to be available certainly such an article
or part would be manufactured or kept for sale only as an
accessory for the use in the motor vehicle. [66H-67A]
4. If the test that each accessory must add to the
convenience or effectiveness of the use of the car as a
whole is given acceptance many a part in the motor car by
this process would fail outside the ambit of the accessories
to the motor car. That would not appear to be the intention
of the legislature. [67B]
5. The appellants in the instant case manufacture car
seat covers, upholstery for sale as a automobile part in he
regular course of business. Therefore, they are exigible to
Sales tax at 13% under entry 3 of Schedule 1st read with
section 3(3) of the Act. [67E]
JUDGMENT:
