9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... switches, casings, cappings, reapers, bends, junction boxes, meter boxes, switch boxes, meter boards, switch boards, electrical earthenware and porcelain-ware." The present controversy arises out of an assessment for the year 1972-73. It may be observed that item 41-A of the First Schedule which was subsequently inserted with effect from 3rd March, 1975, which incidentally does not apply to the present case makes the following "electrical instruments" as subjects of single point levy: "41-A. All electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule), but including electrical fans, lighting bulbs, torches, fluorescent tubes and their fittings including chokes and starters and parts and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Certain general observations to be found in that decision are unexceptionable. The learned judges observed that it would be neither possible nor desirable for a Court to embark on an exhaustive definition or enumeration of what constitutes electrical goods within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act. They also recognised that it would be unwise to devise a formula or test of universal application. At the same time, they repelled the suggestion that the expression "electrical goods" ought properly to be confined only to those goods or items of machinery which are used in the generation, storage, distribution and transmission of electricity. They proceeded to hold that only articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application of el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, that they regarded this characteristic as the sole or decisive factor for holding that the said item came under the heading "electrical goods", for, in a subsequent decision in which William jacks and Co. Ltd.'s case [1955] 6 STC 301 was purported to have been applied by the same learned Judges, viz., William Jack and Co. Ltd. v. State [1960] 11 STC 340, the same learned Judges observed that the mere fact that an item of machinery depended on electricity for its working would not lead to the conclusion that it would fall within the category of electrical goods. In this case, the learned judges were dealing with a lathe which was fashioned to operate with the aid of electrical energy. The learned judges pointed out that a lathe of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctrical goods and secondly their use cannot be had excepting with electrical energy. According to the learned Judges both these factors must be present. It seems to us that monobloc pumpsets answer the test which have been laid down in some form or other in all the decisions which we have referred to. It is a single unit of machinery which, although it contains a suction for lifting water, is yet intrinsically cleaved into an electric motor, both being integral parts of the same mechanical unit such that without the one the other could not perform its function. The second characteristic of this pumpset is that the components relating to suction cannot be taken apart and used as such or separated from the components comprising the electr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bring those sales under entry 34 of Schedule B dealing with agricultural implements, notwithstanding that the goods, as such, and in their instrinsic character, could be brought within the other category, namely, monobloc pumping set, if they had not been sold to agriculturists. In a later case of the same High Court in Paul Electric Co. v. Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner [1980] 46 STC 504, a similar view was taken of the nature of the goods sold. The approach of the High Court was to consider the monobloc pumping set from the point of view of the sales destination being to the agricultural section so as to render the transaction as sales of agricultural implements. The learned judges observed that but for the sale having been di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal was in error in holding that monobloc pumps have got to be assessed as an item of general machinery and do not fall within the classification of electrical goods within the meaning of item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Their decision as we have earlier demonstrated is based on a thorough misunderstanding of what was decided by this Court in the first of the William Jacks and Co. Ltd.'s case [1955] 6 STC 301. We accordingly allow the State Government's revision and set aside the Tribunal's order and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The State will have its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. January 11, 1982. The order of the Court was made by BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J.-This case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
