9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso contended that the latter turnover was liable to tax at 2 per cent under section 5(3-A). The assessing authority rejected that contention and assessed the turnover to tax at 3 per cent and 3 per cent under section 5(1) of the Act. On 21st April, 1977, the petitioner claimed that its sale transactions had the support of form 37 and therefore liable to be taxed at the concessional rate provided by section 5(3-A) and the levy at the rates prescribed under section 5(1) was an apparent mistake which demands rectification. But the assessing authority rejected that claim for rectification stating thus: "As per the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Karnataka, Bangalore, dated 12th March, 1975, for 1967-68 and 1968-69 and 1969 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by the petitioner were not component parts of the goods set out in the Second Schedule. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal without examining the real controversy in the case. Hence this revision petition. 3.. The primary question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the authorities below were justified in rejecting form 37 produced by the petitioner for earning concessional rate of tax prescribed under section 5(3-A). Section 5(3-A) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or sub-section (3), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods by such dealer to a regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id sub-section. The explanation reads thus: "For the purpose of this sub-section 'component part' means an article which forms an identifiable constituent of the finished product and which along with others goes to make up the finished product." The scope of section 5(3-A) came up for consideration before this Court in two decisions,- (i) In Kishindas Agencies v. State of Mysore [1974] 33 STC 65; (1974) 1 Kar LJ 149 a Bench of this Court (Govinda Bhat, C.J., and Srinivasa Iyengar, J) has held that "the component parts sold by the dealer must be one of the goods mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act and the component part must be an identifiable constituent of the finished product and the benefit of concessional rate of tax provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1959. As to the scope of "component part" it was observed thus: "In our judgment, if the component is capable of identification by a chemical or other test as a component of a finished product falling within the schedule, it would be an identifiable constituent within the meaning of section 3(3), explanation, and the sale of the component would qualify for the concessional rate of tax." The Supreme Court rejected the contention regarding the test of visual identification of a component. 5.. The scheme of section 5(3-A) of the Act and the explanation thereto, as we understand, in the light of the decisions to which we have called attention is this: The dealer who sells an article which forms an identifiable constituent of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
