1975 (11) TMI 131 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether tractor parts and electric motors are machinery and liable to tax at 5% or 7% under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. Whether the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal's decision regarding the tax rate on tractor parts and electric motors was correct.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute over the tax rate applicable to tractor parts and electric motors under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Additional Sales Tax Tribunal referred two questions to the court for opinion. The first question pertained to whether tractor parts and electric motors should be taxed at 5% or 7%, while the second question questioned the assessing officer's justification for assessing the turnover at 7%. The assessee, a dealer and manufacturer of grills and steel fabricated goods, had paid tax at 5% on these items, but the Sales Tax Officer contended that they should be taxed at 7% based on a notification from 1957.

The appellate authority upheld the additional tax demand, leading the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that tractor parts and electric motors were not machinery and should be taxed at 5%. However, the Tribunal did not provide detailed reasons for its decision. The court analyzed the relevant notification from 1957, which classified electrical goods and machinery separately for taxation purposes. The court referred to legal precedents to define "machinery" as any mechanical contrivance generating power or modifying natural forces.

Based on the definition of machinery and legal interpretations, the court concluded that electric motors fell under the category of electrical goods taxed at 7%. The court emphasized that machinery is a common parlance term and includes items like diesel engines. Therefore, tractor parts were considered spare parts of machinery and subject to the 7% tax rate. Consequently, the court answered the first question by stating that the Tribunal was wrong in taxing tractor parts and electric motors at 5% and upheld the assessing officer's decision to tax them at 7%.

In the absence of representation from the assessee, the court directed each party to bear their own costs. Both judges, Misra R.N. and Panda K.B., concurred with the judgment, and the references were answered accordingly.