Items that are essential for the effective and convenient running of a motor vehicle, even if not indispensable, can be considered as automobile spare parts and are eligible for concessional rate of tax under the relevant notification.

VENKATASWAMI, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the erstwhile Board of Revenue by invoking the suo motu power, the present appeals are filed by the assessee. As a common question of law is involved in these two appeals filed by the same assessee, but, for different years, namely, 1973-74 and 1974-75, it is different to note the facts of one assessment year.

2. For the assessment year 1974-75, the appellant/assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8, 78, 238.21 and Rs. 6, 46, 246.48, respectively. After giving an opportunity and after perusing the accounts of the appellants, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore, determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 6, 46, 446. Out of the said taxable turnover, the appellants claimed that turnover amounting to Rs. 6, 40, 872.81 represents sales of automobile parts and, therefore, exigible to tax at 13 per cent, in the light of a notification issued under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act") on March 18, 1970. The assessing officer held that:

"the dealers are dealing in smoke screen glasses, door locks, tail lamps, door channels, side mirrors, fibre glass, dash boards, grills, etc., which are not parts of automobiles essential to make the vehicle run" *

and, therefore, they will not fall under the Notification No. 86 of 1970 dated March 18, 1970 to claim concessional rate of tax at 13 per cent. Consequently that turnover was subjected to tax at 15 per cent, treating it as falling under item 3 of the First Schedule to the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The first appellate authority was of the view that items like door laces, counter tapes, flexible channels, shield glasses, side glasses, door locks, horns, hub caps, mirrors, speedometer cables, etc., are essential to make the car to run as a car in complete shape. Therefore, they are parts of automobiles. According to the first appellate authority, those items are essential inasmuch as without those items, the car will not be in full shape. On this view, the first Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted the relief.

3. The Board of Revenue, on a scrutiny of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, found that the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not correct. Therefore, after complying with the formalities and after hearing the counsel for the assessee, the Board of Revenue held that the goods involved like door laces, counter tapes, flexible channels, shield glasses, side glasses, door locks, horns, hub caps, mirrors and speedometers are only accessories and not spare parts to automobiles and, therefore, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the order of the assessing officer was restored. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, the present appeal is filed.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the view taken by the Board of Revenue is not correct. On the other hand, the reasonings given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in support of his view that the goods involved are only parts of automobiles are well-founded.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), contending contra, submitted that the reasonings given by the Board of Revenue are quite in accordance with several decisions of the High Courts in regard to the definition of "accessory". He also pointed out that the Webster's International Dictionary has specifically given the example a speedometer as an accessory. In this connection, the following decisions were cited at the bar : Khetty Traders v. State of Madras reported in 1973 (32) STC 346 (Mad.), Union Traders v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer reported in 1975 (36) STC 180, 1975 (4) CTR 161

(Mad.), State of Tamil Nadu v. Best and Co. (P). Ltd. reported in 1984 (57) STC 174 (Mad.) and State of A.P. v. Power and Industrial Equipment a