9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (4) TMI 385 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Classification of arc carbon under the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Analysis: The High Court of Madras was tasked with determining whether arc carbon falls under item 6 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The initial item 6 included cinematographic equipment, and the question arose due to an amendment in 1981 that specifically added arc carbon to the list. The Tribunal initially held that arc carbon was covered under the pre-amendment item 6, relying on a Supreme Court judgment regarding a similar provision in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner contested this decision, arguing that arc carbon, being a consumable item with a transient life, should not be considered an accessory under the tax law. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1976] 37 STC 378, where a similar issue was addressed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court had concluded that arc carbon was rightly classified as an accessory under the relevant entry, similar to the one in the Tamil Nadu Act. The Court emphasized that the term "accessory" should not be limited to permanent parts only, and arc carbon, despite being consumable, was essential for the operation of projectors and cinematographic equipment. The Court also cited another Supreme Court case, Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1991] 80 STC 233, which reaffirmed the broad interpretation of the term "accessory" as established in the earlier judgment. In light of the Supreme Court precedents and the broad definition of "accessory," the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that arc carbon fell under item 6 of the First Schedule both before and after the 1981 amendment. The Court dismissed the tax revision case, stating that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court judgments, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
