Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Jayanand Khira & Co. Private Ltd. on 4 February, 1975
In this connection a reference may also be made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayanand Khira & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1975] 36 STC 242. In that case the question related to the classification of an oil-tank sold by the respondent for the purpose of being fitted on the chassis of a motor vehicle. The relevant entry in that case was entry 58 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 as it stood at the relevant time. It dealt with (inter alia) components and spare parts of motor vehicles. The Court held that, "in order to determine whether a particular article is a component part of another article, the correct test would be to look both at the article which is said to be the component part and the completed article and then come to the conclusion whether the first article is a component part of the whole or not. If one were to look at a complete and finished product, one might find so many parts which, by being fixed or otherwise made part of the said product, would lead one into a fallacious impression that they are component parts. One must first look at the article itself and consider what its uses are and whether its only use or its primary or ordinary use is as the component part of another article."
Bharat Sales Limited vs The State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 1982
In this connection our attention was drawn to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharat Sales Limited v. State of Gujarat reported in [1982] 49 STC 560. In the case before the Gujarat High Court it had to consider entry 76 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act at the relevant time. This entry dealt with (inter alia) refrigerators and mechanical water-coolers and component parts and accessories thereof. Entry 69(a) dealt with air-conditioning plant and spare parts and accessories thereof. Entry 41 dealt with electrical goods not being machinery used in the manufacture of goods and spare parts and accessories of such machinery. The Gujarat High Court was required to consider whether autovolters of certain types referred to in that case were to be considered as accessories of refrigerators or air-conditioners or electrical goods. The Gujarat High Court held that sales of these autovolters for use as accessories to refrigerators would be covered by entry 76 while sales of autovolters which were sold for use with an air-conditioner would be covered by entry 69 of the said Act. If they were sold neither for use with a refrigerator not with an air-conditioner, they would be classified as electrical goods covered by entry 41. With respect to the Gujarat High Court, we are unable to agree with this decision of the Gujarat High Court. The classification of any goods cannot vary with the use to which the article would be put by the purchaser. If the logic of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court were to be applied, then, in respect of the same goods sold by the same dealer to different purchasers, the same goods will be classified differently and may attract different rates of tax depending upon how the purchaser uses the article. In our view, this would be an untenable position under the Sales Tax Act. In the first place, every seller would be required to make elaborate, enquiries from the purchaser at the time when he sells any article. Secondly, it may involve the sales tax department into making enquiries, which may be impossible in most case, as to how the article sold was used by the purchaser. It is also not clear what will happen when a purchaser's professed use at the time of purchase is different from his actual use. Lastly, such an interpretation would run counter to the accepted principles of classification laid down by various judgments including those of the Supreme Court.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Govardhandas Manmohandas on 4 December, 1984
(Also see in this connection our judgment in S.T. Reference No. 61 of 1979 in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Govardhandas Manmohandas decided on 4th December, 1984 [1986] 63 STC 434). The attention of the Gujarat High Court was not drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. or to any other decision of any High Court. It is well-established that the actual use of an article makes no difference to its classification. One has to look to the primary or predominant use of the article in question in order to classify it correctly.
1