9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir parts in the year 1966-67. A dispute arose as to the rate of tax exigible on the sale of batteries. The Judge (Revisions), following the case of Jupiter Battery Works, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax[1973] 31 S.T.C. 80; 1972 U.P.T.C. 224., held that the appropriate rate applicable to the sale of batteries was six pies per rupee. By Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under section 3-A of the Act directed that certain goods set out in the notification which were manufactured in Uttar Pradesh would be taxed at the rate of one anna per rupee at the point of sale by the manufacturer. Item No. 24 of this notification read as under: "24. Motor vehicles, including mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notification of 1st October, 1958, was that goods mentioned at items Nos. 9 and 10 became subject to tax at the rate of 7 naye paise and any other notification in respect of these items stood superseded. Counsel for the assessee contended that the notification of 1st October, 1958, superseded the notification of 31st March, 1956, only as respects those items, which were mentioned therein, and articles which were not dealt with by the notification of 1st October, 1958, were still governed by the earlier notification of 31st March, 1956. It is not possible to accept this contention for reasons stated hereinafter. The notification of 1st October, 1958, has overriding effect, as goods dealt by the notification cease to be governed by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider as to whether batteries are spare parts of motor vehicles. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has, following the decision in the case of Jupiter Battery Works, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax[1973] 31 S.T.C. 80; 1972 U.P.T.C. 224., imposed tax at the rate of 0-0-6 pies per rupee. The decision in Jupiter Battery's case(1) is no longer appropriate for the assessment year in question, as the notifications of 31st March, 1956, and 10th May, 1956, do not survive, and that decision was based upon these notifications which had the words "including batteries" in the relevant entries. The decision of the revising authority based on the old entries does not appear to be correct. The question then is as to whether the turnover of motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to supply in emergency", and held that old tyres for bullock-carts were spare parts of bullockcarts. In Bajoria Halwasiya Service Station v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1970] 26 S.T.C. 108., a question arose whether bus bodies were spare parts of motor vehicles. Gulati, J., who spoke for the court, put the test to be applied pithily, when he observed that, in the popular sense, the term "spare part", when used with reference to motor vehicles, is a duplicate part of motor vehicles kept in readiness to replace loss, breakage, etc. Motor batteries are not normally kept as an extra to replace an existing battery. In fact keeping an extra battery would be an useless surplusage, as in due course of time there will be diminution in its voltage a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
