Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 741 (ALL)

COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX v. RAVI INDUSTRIES

1987-08-03

OM PRAKASH

body1987
OM PRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) THESE are two revisions by the Revenue for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1973-74 against the Tribunals combined judgment dated 2nd April, 1986. Both the revisions are disposed of by a combined order. ( 2 ) THE dealer supplied clamps and channels to the electrical department and the question arose whether these items are covered by serial No. 7-A of the Notification No. ST-7096/x-1012 of 1965 dated 1st October, 1965. Serial No. 7-A runs as follows : electrical equipment, plants and their accessories required for generation, distribution and transmission of electrical energy. ( 3 ) THE submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that the clamps and channels being accessories required for distribution and transmission of electrical energy are covered by the aforesaid item serial No. 7-A of the notification and are liable to tax at 7 per cent. The submission of Sri Bharatji, learned counsel for the assessee, is1 that it is only the accessories of the electrical equipment or plant that can be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent and not any other item. He submits that the clamps and channels can in no case be said to be the accessory of the electrical equipment or plant. To support his submission, he relied on a decision of the Kerala high Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Anand Wire and Allied Industries [1979] 43 STC 273. In the said authority the description of the goods so far as material that came up for interpretation before the Kerala High Court, was as under : all electrical goods, other than those specifically mentioned in this Schedule, instruments, apparatus, appliances and all such articles. . . and all other accessories and component parts either sold as a whole or in parts. ( 4 ) THE items falling in the above description were liable to tax at the rate of 9 per cent. The question was whether the stay-wires used for giving support to the electric posts fell within the above description and whether the stay-wires could be taken to be an accessory to electrical goods. The Honourable Judges of the Kerala High Court observed in second paragraph at page 276 as follows:. . . we are of the opinion. . . The question was whether the stay-wires used for giving support to the electric posts fell within the above description and whether the stay-wires could be taken to be an accessory to electrical goods. The Honourable Judges of the Kerala High Court observed in second paragraph at page 276 as follows:. . . we are of the opinion. . . electric posts to which the stay-wires act as support, cannot be regarded as electrical goods within the meaning of the entry. ( 5 ) WHEN stay-wire giving support to electric posts cannot be the accessory of electrical goods, I fail to understand as to how the clamps and channels used for giving support to the electric wires, can be regarded as accessory of electrical equipment or plant. It is only the electrical equipment or the plant or the accessories thereof that can be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent and not any other item. The clamps and channels used for giving support to the electric wires on the electric posts cannot be said to be an accessory of electrical equipment or plant and, therefore, the tax at the rate of 7 per cent is not exigible. Almost similar view was taken by this Court in commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gulmohar Industries 1980 UPTC 280, in which the question was whether the concrete poles supplied to the electricity department can be regarded as accessories of electrical equipment or plant. The contention of the department that the concrete pole was the accessory of electrical equipment on account of its user was negatived by this Court in the said authority and this Court then observed: poles might be needed for running electricity but by that they do not become accessory of electrical plant or equipment. ( 6 ) I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the Standing Counsel that the clamps and channels are accessories of electrical equipment or plant, because they are used for giving support to the electrical wires on the electric poles. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that they are liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent for the assessment year 1973-74 and at the rate of 3 per cent for the assessment year 1969-70. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that they are liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent for the assessment year 1973-74 and at the rate of 3 per cent for the assessment year 1969-70. The tax for the assessment year 1973-74 so far as channel is concerned, is beyond the pale of controversy, because under Section 14 (iv) (v) steel structurals include channels as well and under that provision the rate of tax is only 4 per cent. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revisions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .