1984 (4) TMI 258 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of entry 58(2) of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding sales of seat covers and covers for motor vehicles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The case involved a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding the interpretation of entry 58(2) of Schedule C. The dispute arose from the sale of seat covers and covers for motor vehicles by the respondents to their customers. The Commissioner held the articles fell under entry 58(2) of Schedule C, while the Tribunal ruled they fell under entry 22 of Schedule E.

2. Legal Provisions:
Section 8 of the Act deals with the levy of sales tax on goods described in Schedule C. Entry 58(2) of Schedule C includes components and spare parts of motor vehicles and other articles adapted for use as parts and accessories of such vehicles, with a prescribed tax rate of 12 paise in the rupee.

3. Contentions of the Parties:
The applicant argued that the articles in question were adapted for use as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, falling under entry 58(2) of Schedule C. On the other hand, the opposing party contended that only specific items like tyres, tubes, and batteries were intended as parts or accessories under the said entry.

4. Precedents and Case Law:
Various cases were cited by both parties to support their arguments. The Supreme Court's caution in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. Ltd v. State of Andhra Pradesh was highlighted, emphasizing the importance of considering relevant entries in different Acts. Additionally, the Division Bench's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. L.D. Bhave and Sons was referenced to define the term "accessory."

5. Judgment and Analysis:
The Court held that the articles in question, being made specifically for motor vehicles and contributing to their beautification and comfort, could be considered accessories under entry 58(2) of Schedule C. The Court referenced the definition of "accessory" to support its conclusion. The judgment clarified that the controversy regarding accessories to parts or accessories of the main article was not addressed, focusing solely on the articles' classification as motor vehicle accessories.

6. Conclusion:
The Court answered the reference question in the negative, ruling against the respondents-dealer. No costs were awarded considering all the circumstances of the case. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, contentions of the parties, relevant precedents, and ultimately concluded on the classification of the articles under the applicable entry of the Act.