High Court Of Delhi
SUJAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISONER, SALES TAX - Respondent
Decided On : 05/20/1969
SALES TAX - Spare parts - Motor bodies - Whether motor bodies fall within the expression "spare parts" of motor vehicles - Interpretation of item I of the First Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of motor bodies, challenged the additional demand of sales tax imposed on motor bodies built by him. The issue was whether motor bodies fell within the expression "spare parts" of motor vehicles under item I of the First Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that motor bodies do not fall within the expression "spare parts" of motor vehicles. It interpreted the term "spare parts" to mean an extra part of a vehicle or machine kept for use in an emergency or replacement, and that the body of a motor vehicle cannot be considered a spare part.
Issues: Whether motor bodies fall within the expression "spare parts" of motor vehicles under item I of the First Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the plain meaning of the term "spare parts" and the common usage of the term to conclude that motor bodies do not fall within its meaning. It also distinguished the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh Lucknou v. Pritam Singh, which dealt with the interpretation of the term "component parts" of motor vehicles, holding that the term "component" is different from the term "spare parts".
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order levying additional sales tax on the motor bodies built by the petitioner.
( 1 ) THE short question for decision in the civil writ petition is whether additional demand of Rs. 35,211. 40 for sales tax in respect of the motor-bodies built by the petitioner is valid. The decision of this question would depend upon the interpretation of item I of the First Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter called the Act), as it stood prior to the amendment of the same by notification dated the 31st August 1966. It then read as follows:-
"motor vehicles, including chasis of motor vehicles, motor tyres and tubes and spare parts of Motor vehicles. "the expression accessories was introduced after motor tyres and tubes" but before "and spare parts of motor vehicles" with effect from 1st September, 1966 by the aforesaid notification. Since the assessment in question in this writ petition deals with the period prior to the said notification of the year 1966, we are not concerned, in this writ petition, with the question whether motor-bodies would come within the expression accessories or not. We are, on the other hand, concerned only with the question whether motor bodies would come under the expession "spare parts" of motor vehicles.
( 2 ) IT is pertinent to note that according to section 5 (l) (a) of the Act the rate of tax payable by a dealer shall be levied as follows:-
" (A) in the case of taxable turnover in respect of the goods specified in the First Schedule, at the rate of ten paise in the rupee : (b) in the case of taxable turnover in respect of the goods specified in the Third Schedule, at the rate of two paise in the rupee; (e) in the case of taxable turnover in respect of any other goods, at the rate of five paise in the rupee. "
( 3 ) ACCORDING to section 5 read with First Schedule of the Act a rate of ten paise in the rupee can be charged in respect of the goods specified in the First Schedule, as per clause 5-A of section I (a), whereas if, "motor-bodies" do not fall within the First Schedule of Item I, this case would fall only under clause (e) of section 5 (1); the rate would then be only five paise in the rupee, namely, half of what is leviable on the sale of goods mentioned in the First Schedule.
( 4 ) BEFORE I discuss this question on the merits, I have to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Shri B. N. Kirpal, learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner not having filed the revision petition, as he was entitiled to do against the impugned order imposing the additional tax, he could not file the present writ application. On this question, his Lordship Mr. Justice Sikri held in Collector of Customs mid Exise, Cochin v. M/s A. S. Bava, that the existence of a remedy by way of revision does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226. In view of the aforesaid ruling, which appears to be the latest among those cited before me on this point, there is no need to notice the other decision which were cited before me. It being admitted that only a revision, not an appeal, lay against the impugned order the above said decision of the Supreme Court would directly apply to this case. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition is, therefore, over-ruled.
( 5 ) THE meaning of spare part has been given in the Webster s Third Mew International Dictionary, Volun e II, 1967 Edition, page 2183, Column I, as follows:-
"an extra part of a vehicle or machine kept for use in emergency or replacement. "obviously, the body of a motor-vehicle cannot fall within the expression spare part .
( 6 ) IN Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Amar Radio Cabnet Works , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that radio cabinets do not fall within the expression spare parts in entry No. 65 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was contended for the revenue in that case that the expression "spare paits", should be equated with the terms "parts"
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.