2010 (7) TMI 923 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entry tax was not leviable on the plant and machinery including dumpers, trucks and dozers, etc., as they are not incidental goods? Held that - Dumpers, dozer and trucks are necessary for (that is in support of the plant and machinery) carrying out mining operations in the local area without which the mining operation cannot be said to be complete and therefore, they cannot be termed as incidental goods. However, the air-conditioner and the motor car can be termed as incidental and are liable to entry tax.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether entry tax is leviable on plant and machinery including dumpers, trucks, and dozers, etc., as they are not incidental goods?
2. Whether air-conditioners and cars are liable to entry tax as incidental goods?

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether entry tax could be imposed on plant and machinery, including dumpers, trucks, and dozers, under the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976. The court examined the definition of "incidental goods" under the C.G. Entry Tax Act and referred to previous judgments to determine the scope of goods subject to entry tax. The court held that goods like plant and machinery, which are employed for the manufacture of a commodity, are considered main goods and not incidental. Therefore, dumpers, dozers, and trucks necessary for mining operations were deemed essential and not incidental goods, making them exempt from entry tax. However, the court concluded that air-conditioners and cars could be classified as incidental goods and were liable to entry tax.

2. The court referred to the case law of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Vippy Solvex Products Pvt. Ltd. to establish the distinction between goods used "for" manufacture and goods used "in" manufacture. The court emphasized that goods used in specified activities are subject to entry tax, while goods used for such activities are exempt. By analyzing the language and intent of the legislation, the court determined that incidental goods must be capable of being used "in" specified activities, not just "for" them. This interpretation led to the conclusion that dumpers, dozers, and trucks were essential for mining operations and not incidental goods, exempting them from entry tax. Conversely, air-conditioners and cars were considered incidental and were held liable for entry tax.

3. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legislative provisions, definitions of key terms, and previous judicial interpretations. By examining the nature of goods in relation to their usage in specified activities, the court determined the applicability of entry tax. The judgment provided clarity on the distinction between main goods and incidental goods, ensuring a consistent application of entry tax laws in cases involving plant and machinery, as well as other goods like air-conditioners and cars.