9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sustained the levy at 7 per cent. on a turnover of Rs. 11,250 being the price of the bodies fitted to the chassis supplied by the customers. As against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessees preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the assessees that the disputed turnover of Rs. 11,250 represented the amount realised by body-building which is a works contract not amounting to a sale. They also contended that even if the body-building on chassis supplied by the customers is taken as a sale of the bodies, such sale should be taxed only at 2 per cent. multi-point, and not at a single point at 7 per cent. under item 3 of Schedule I. The revenue contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s adapted for use generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles". It is not the case of the revenue that such bodies can be brought as component parts of the motor vehicles. Dealing with the scope of a similar entry, i.e., item 4 of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, this court in Simpson Company Limited v. State of Madras[1969] 23 S.T.C. 374., expressed the view that the bus bodies would not fall within any one of the goods in the said item. According to the learned judges, bus bodies cannot be regarded either as component parts of motor vehicles or accessories thereto. They also referred to the fact that the Government themselves proceeded on the basis that the said item did not include the bus bodies fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a motor vehicle to have a body mounted on it. " This decision, which holds that a body built on a chassis is a component part of a motor vehicle, cannot apply to the question that arises here as to whether the body built on the chassis is an article adapted for use as part and accessory of a motor vehicle. As already stated, it is not the case of the revenue that the bodies built on chassis will come within the term "component parts of motor vehicles". Therefore, that decision is not helpful for the present discussion. The statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act 7 of 1965, which specifically included bodies built on chassis of motor vehicles belonging to others along with the other categories of motor vehicles referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical interpretation of an ambiguous or doubtful statute that has been acted upon by official charged with its administration will not be disturbed except for weighty reasons'." The above passage makes it clear that the interpretation placed on a statutory provision by the Government cannot altogether be ignored, and this is the view taken by the Bench of this Court in Simpson Company Ltd. v. State of Madras[1969] 23 S.T.C. 374. We, therefore, hold, agreeing with the view taken in the said case, that the bodies built on chassis supplied by the customers will not be attracted by item 3 of Schedule I before its amendment in 1965. The tax case is, therefore, allowed. But, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
