Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kochu Thommen, J. - The assessee is the respondent is this Tax Revision case. It manufactures leakpoof or dry cell batteries which are labelled as transistor batteries. The assessee also manufactures cinema arc carbons. Two questions arise : Are the batteries spare parts or accessories of radios and transistor so as to fall under item 12 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General sales Tax Act, 1963? Are the arc carbons parts of accessories required for use with cinematographic equipments so as to fall under item 14 of the said schedule ? According to the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, such batteries and carbons fall respectively under items 12 and 14 of the said schedule. The assessee, however, contended before these authorities that batteries fell under item 26 of the said schedule which relates to "all electrical goods." It also contended that carbons came under residuary provision, namely, section 5(1)(ii). These contentions were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the assessee succeeded before the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. The Tribunal by its order dated 18-7-1973 held that the dry cell batteries fell under item 26 and the arc carbons under the residuary clauses namely 5(1)(ii). We shall now read the concerned provisions. Section 5 says :

7% All electrical goods (other than At the point of first those specifically mentioned sale in the State by a in this schedule) instruments, dealer who is liable to 7% apparatus, appliances and all tax under sec. 5. such articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy, including fans and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares and porcelain and all other accessories and component parts either sold as a whole or in parts.

2. The Tribunal found that the batteries manufactured by the assessee could be used for various purposes; the transistors were sold without batteries; these batteries could not be recharged once they were discharged. The Tribunal, on the basis of such finding, held that the batteries could not be described as spare parts and accessories of wireless reception instruments and apparatus, and that they were electrical goods falling under item 26. As regards the arc carbons, the Tribunal found that they were general appliances which could be used for various purposes such as special types of printing and processing; and also where intense brilliance was required, as in the case of search-lights, signelling lamps, cinema projectors and the like. It was therefore held that arc carbons, although called cinema carbons, were general goods falling under section 5(1)(ii).

7. To restate the principles; A thing is a part of the other, if the other is incomplete without it. A thing is not an accessory of other, if the other, although complete in itself, cannot function without the thing.

8. Looking at the leakpoof or the arc carbons, one is not likely to say that they are either parts or accessories. A transistor is complete without the battery; but, unless the transistor can be connected to the mains, it cannot function without the battery. The batteries are indispensable for the functioning of the transistors. They are not accessories for they do not merely add to the convenience or effectiveness of the transistors, but they make them work. Nevertheless they are not parts of the transistors, for the transistors are complete without them. Same is the position with the arc carbons vis-a-vis the cinematographic equipments.

9. As stated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, (1967 19 S.T.C. 469) "it is now well-settled that while interpreting terms is statutes like the Sales Tax Act, resort should be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them that is to say, to their commercial sense". (See also 1974 K.L.T. 12 and 1976 K.L.T. 22). There is no evidence to suggest that the leakproof batteries and arc carbons are regarded by those dealing in them as accessories or parts of transistors or projectors as the case may be. Notwithstanding the label of the model of advertisement, one had to, as stated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ganu Bhai vs. Commissioner of Sales tax, (1975 36 S.T.C. 421) : 1975 CTR (M.P.) 56, see to what use the commodity in question is normally put. Looked at this way, on the basis of facts found by the Tribunal, one has to conclude that the batteries cannot be regarded as normally used only for transistors. Similarly, the arc carbons also cannot be regarded as normally used only for cinematographic projectors. As stated by the Tribunal these commodities are used for various purposes, apart from transistors or projectors. In such circumstances, and for the reason stated above, we are of opinion that the batteries cannot be regarded as parts or accessories of cinematographic equipments. With great respect, we do not agree with the reasoning adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cited above. Consequently we dismiss the Tax Revision Case, but direct the parties to bear their respective costs.