Rajagopalan, J.-The question for determination in these proceedings in revision is whether the articles specified in lists 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) were electrical goods within the meaning of section 3(2)(viii) of the General Sales Tax Act and on the goods specified in section 3(2)(viii) an additional tax of three pies in the rupee can be imposed. The Tribunal was unanimous in its findings that item 9 of list 1(a), the electrical pump sets enumerated in list 1 (b) and all the items in list 1(c) other than item 2 were electrical goods. Item 2 in list 1(c ) Should really have been included in list 1(a) ; item 4 of list 1(a) was 26 inches circular saw-benches, and item 2 of list 1(c) was a machine of the same type but of 20 inches variety. With reference to items other than item 9 of list 1(a) and item 2 of list 1(c) the learned Chairman of the Tribunal was of the view that they were not electrical goods. The view of the majority of the Tribunal which prevailed was that the component electrical motors of these items were electrical goods, and that on the turnover computed on the sale price of these electrical motors the assessee was liable to pay the additional tax of three pies for which section 3(2)(viii ) of the Act provided.

Section 3(2)(viii) which before the amendment of the Act was section 3 (2)(v) runs:-

“All electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances, including fans and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenware and porcelain and all other accessories.”

The Act did not define what “electrical goods” were. Neither the Act nor the rules framed thereunder prescribed any test which should be satisfied before any given article was brought within the scope of section 3(2)(viii). Administrative instructions were issued by the Government to the departmental authorities in G.O.No.56, dated 5th January, 1952 which ran:

“a machinery should be treated as an indivisible unit, where the electrical component forms an integral part of it and the entire machinery would be subject to the additional tax under section 3(2)(v) of the Madras General Sales tax Act. Where the electrical component is not an integral part and can be detached from the machinery the value of the electrial component would alone be subjected to the additional Tax.”

As the learned Chairman rightly pointed out that did not conclude a judicial determination of the question at issue even before the Tribunal.

It is neither possible nor desirable for this Court to embark on a preparation of an exhaustive list of what constitutes “electrical goods” within the meaning of section 3(2)(viii) of the Act nor even is it possible to devise a formula of universal application. With reference to the items which the Tribunal had to consider in this case the test formulated by the learned Chairman was in our opinion the correct one-the only practicable test. He recorded:

“I hold that only such articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electric energy, can be termed electrical goods or appliances.”

The learned Chairman stated further:-

“I am accordingly of the view that barring a case where a machine cannot be used except with the application of electrical energy, the machine has to be regarded as non-electrical. Both in the section and the description of the goods the expression used is”turnover relating to such goods.“The goods sold has to be taken as a unit in determining if it comes within the description and cannot be split up in the manner indicated in the Government order.”

We entirely approve of this test.

The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the plea rejected, and in our opinion rightly rejected by the Tribunal that it was only whatever was needed for generating, storing and distributing electricity that could fall within the scope of “electrical goods” in section 3(2)(viii) of the Act. That would be to place an unduly narrow interpretation of the expression “electrical goods.” The argument of the learned counsel was based virtually on the words

Click Here to Read the rest of this document