Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (3) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to tax at a higher rate than other goods. Item 18 of Schedule I was as follows: "Electrical goods other than electrical plant, equipment and their accessories including service meters required for generation, transmission and distribution." In the course of the assessment for the financial year 1971-72, M/s. Simplicity Engineers contended that the electric furnaces sold by them were not "electrical goods" covered by item 18, and, hence, did not attract the higher rate of tax. The Sales Tax Officer rejected this contention and held that the electric furnaces were "electrical goods" covered by item 18. On an appeal by M/s. Simplicity Engineers against the assessment order, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax accepted their contentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ention. It is true that "electrical plant" and "equipment" and "their accessories" are expressly excluded by item 18, but only if they are "required for generation, transmission and distribution" of electricity. The argument ignores these latter words. It is admitted that, in the present case, the electric furnaces had nothing to do with "generation, transmission and distribution" of electricity. Consequently, they do not come within any of the exceptions in item 18. Counsel for M/s. Simplicity Engineers ultimately accepted that this was the proper interpretation of item 18, and no longer pressed the argument. He, then, reverted to the original contention that the electric furnaces were not "electrical goods". The words "electrical good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es the use of which could not be had except with the application of electrical energy" for they themselves generated electricity. The test underwent a substantial change in William jacks and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras [1960] 11 STC 340, another decision of the Madras High Court. The question there was whether a lathe machine came within the scope of the expression "electrical goods". It was held that it did not. The reason given was that though "the lathe itself is machinery, dependent no doubt on electricity in this case, but which could easily be designed and altered for use with other types of power". Thus, the test, according to this decision, was not whether the particular machine under consideration worked on electricity or not, bu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he description of 'electrical goods'. For instance, the use of a motor car cannot be had without batteries or a dynamo fitted to it. But on that account, can it be said that motor car is 'electrical goods'? The answer, it seems to us, should be in the negative." On the basis of these tests it was held that welding electrodes were not "electrical goods". In subsequent cases these two tests have been repeatedly accepted. In J.B. Advani-Oerlikon, Electrodes, P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. [1972] 30 STC 337 (MP) they were applied and, again, it was held that welding electrodes were not "electrical goods". In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Traders [1974] 33 STC 3 (All.), on the basis of the same tests, it was held that woode .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctrical goods" at all. The converse proposition, however, is not true. Simply because it does work on electricity does not ipso facto make it "electrical goods". Examples of this proposition, taken from the cases to which I have referred, are a lathe machine, a motor car and welding electrodes. Therefore, the requirement that the article should work on electricity is not the "test" for deciding whether it is "electrical goods", but the sine qua non for it to be such. This is why I demur to the affirmative implication in William Jacks and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras [1955] 6 STC 301 (Mad.). Nor is it relevant to consider whether the machine could be "designed" or "altered" for use with "other types of power". Surely, what one has to consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates