9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the entire turnover of 1971-72 at 10 per cent; part of the turnover of 1972-73 at 7 per cent and the remainder at 10 per cent; part of the turnover of 1973-74 at 10 per cent and the remaining at 12 per cent. There were appeals to the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the appeals for 1971-72 and 1972-73. Regarding the year 1973-74 he set aside the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and directed him to ascertain the turnover relating to television and its components and parts and computers and restrict the tax to that turnover at 10 per cent or 12 per cent, as the case may be, and levy tax on the rest of the disputed turnover at 7 per cent or 8 per cent, as the case may be, as electrical goods. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods manufactured and marketed by the petitioner would come under item 3 or item 12 or under the general item 37 was not considered by the departmental authorities, it directed the assessing authority to obtain the turnover particulars in respect of the items falling under the above heads and determine the amount of tax payable at the prescribed rates. In the result, the Tribunal set aside the order of the authorities below and directed them to reframe the assessments in the light of the directions in that order. The assessee has filed these revision petitions against the order of the Tribunal. The main contention urged by Sri Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n considering whether the goods in question are electrical goods, or not, is not correct. The Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that from the scientific point of view, electronics is a branch of electricity and therefore all electronic goods must be classified as electrical goods. In the context of liability to sales tax, however, it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and the various High Courts including this Court that in order to find out whether particular goods are covered by a particular item in the schedule or not, the real test is to determine how the goods are treated and considered in ordinary parlance by those who are dealing with the trade relating to the said goods. In the leading decision of the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cannot be used without the aid of electricity and hence they must be treated as electrical goods. But that is not the only criterion. The really important criterion is whether these goods are regarded as electrical goods in common parlance, in the sense mentioned by the Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 at 288 (S.C.). This aspect has not at all been gone into by the Tribunal. This has to be considered with reference to each commodity manufactured and marketed by the petitioner which is the subject-matter of sales and which has been included in the turnover. The Tribunal therefore ought to have remanded the case to the authorities for determining whether the goods are electric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
