Judges : V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI,T.KOCHU THOMMEN
PAUL LAZAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : T. R. C. No. 50 of 1975
Decided On : 08/02/1977
Advocates Appeared :
V. M. Prabhakaran Nair; lose K. Kochupappu; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
Copper Wire - Sales Tax - Interpretation of component parts under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The assessee sold copper wires to a transformer manufacturer and sought a concessional tax rate under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963. The tax authority denied the concessional rate, considering copper wires not as component parts of transformers.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the tax authority, stating that copper wires, although used in the manufacturing process of transformers, do not have an identity of their own to be regarded as a component part of electrical goods.
Issues: Interpretation of whether copper wires can be considered component parts of electrical transformers under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: An article can be regarded as a component part of the principal object only if the latter is incomplete without the former, and the former is capable of identification either visually or through chemical or other test as a distinguishable part of the finished product.
Final Decision: The Tax Revision Case lacks merits and is dismissed with costs.
1. The only question which arises in this Tax Revision Case is whether copper wire is a component part of electrical transformers, The Sales Tax Officer held that it was not, and his decision was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. The assessee is a dealer is copper wires and other goods. He sells copper wires to the Indian Transformers, Ltd., Alwaye. It is not disputed that these wires are used by the buyers in the process of manufacturing transformers. During the assessment year 1966-67 the assessee sold copper wires for a total sum of Rs. 1, 75, 843.82 to the Indian Transformers. Ltd., and furnished to the department declarations in Form 18 for the purpose of availing himself of the concessional rate of 1 % in terms of sub-section (3) of S.5 of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963, for short, the Act. We shall read sub-section (3): "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter at component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of only one per cent on the taxable turnover relating to such sale:
Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any sale unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form."
3. One of the conditions which a dealer will have to satisfy before he can claim the concessional rate under the sub-section is that the goods sold by him fell within the First Schedule to the Act. In the instant case, the goods sold by the assessee are copper wires The question is whether these wires can be regarded as component parts of transformers which are admittedly electrical goods falling within the First Schedule. If copper wires do not fall within the First Schedule, the concessional rate would not be available to the seller of such goods. The relevant entry in the First Schedule is Entry No. 26. It reads as follows:
4. It is contended that copper wires are component parts falling under the above entry. An article has been considered to be a component part of another when the article forms a constituent part of the latter and the latter is incomplete without the former. A body mounted on the chassis of a motor vehicle has been treated as a component part of a motor vehicle as a vehicle is incomplete without the body. Diesel engines which can ordinarily be used for various purposes, but which cannot, without the assistance of conversion-kits, be used in motor vehicles, have not been regarded as component parts of motor vehicles. A typewriter ribbon has not been treated as a component part of a typewriter as the latter is complete without the former: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. Pritam Singh (1968) 22 STC. 414); Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow ( (1969) 23 STC. 306); The State of Mysore v Kores India) Ltd., ( (1970 26 STC. 87); and Kores (India) Limited, Kanpur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ((1970 26 STC. 126); also the decisions cited in The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Union Carbide India Limited, Madras-2 ( (1976) 38 STC. 198).
5. A component part has to be an identifiable object. It is not sufficient if the article has been used as a material or a constituent in the manufacture of the final product, like, for example, steel is used in the manufacture of transformers, motor vehicles, electric fans and the like or wood is used in the construction of boats, etc. These are raw materials used in the construction of such goods.
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.