1955 Supreme(Mad) 86
RAJAGOPALAN, RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
William Jacks and Company, Ltd. , Madras – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madras, represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division, Madras – Respondent
Advocates:
V. Ramakrishna Sastri for Messrs. King and Partridge for Petitioner.
S.Ramanujam for the Assistant Government Pleader (K.Veerasami) for Respondent.
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
Click Here to Read the rest of this document