SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(Kar) 23

A.NARAYANA PAL, B.VENKATASWAMI
D. B. BHANDARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE – Respondent


NARAYANA PAI, J.

( 1 ) THE only question for consideration which is common to these six petitions is whether the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as right in taking the view that handlooms are machinery and that parts thereof sold in the course of business are liable to sales tax as falling within entry 20 of schedule II of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

( 2 ) DURING the six assessment years concerned in these petitions, the petitioner had sold certain items which are prescribed as spare parts of handlooms. It is stated, however, that some of the items may not fall accurately within the description of spare parts or parts of the machinery itself, but may fall within the description of or more appropriately be described as "accessories". During the period relevant to these assessments, entry 20 of Schedule II brought under tax only spare parts but not accessories. The word "accessories" was subsequently added by an amendment. Hence the additional argument on behalf of the petitioner is that even if we should agree with the opinion of the Tribunal that handlooms may be regarded as machinery, the question still remains whether some of the items are not mere accessories and therefore ou











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top