1978 (3) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on sales of unclassified items. The appellate authority held that the trestles were not articles of furniture. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision but it was dismissed. The additional revising authority confirmed the finding of the appellate court. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed an application under section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for reference. The application was allowed and the additional revising authority has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion: "Whether trestles fall under the classification of furniture and liable to tax as furniture?" The article sold by the assessee has been thus described in the assessment order: "Unhonne yah bhi dava kiya ki lohe ke trestles ek avo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se in relation to the daily needs of convenient living in a dwelling place or any other apartment." But, at the same time, every such article, which can be essential for the daily needs of convenient living would not become furniture. The test is whether the article in question is "ordinarily" so used and can be accepted as such, "according to the general or popular 'notion' as furniture". The additional revising authority went on to hold that trestles "are not articles which are employed for the purpose of convenient living or for decoration in a dwelling house or apartment. They do not supply the daily convenience of common man in relation to the place where he lives". He further found: "The use of trestles has no relation to the da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . A movable article like trestles which is used in either armouries, gunsmith's shop or some homes for convenient stacking or storing of guns is certainly an article of furniture. The test applied by the additional revising authority that before a commodity can be treated as furniture it must be shown that it was meant for convenient living in a dwelling house or an office or used for decoration is not determinative of the matter. This view has not been accepted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Chandan Metal Products Private Ltd. v. State of Gujarat[1969] 23 S.T.C. 29. There it was held that shelving racks and binstak manufactured from iron and steel were iron and steel furniture within the meaning of entry 44H of Schedule C to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X