Skip to content


Vasthimal Joraji Bhural and Co. Vs. State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R.P. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1967
Judge
Reported in(1968)2MysLJ559; [1969]23STC45(Kar)
ActsMysore Sales Tax Act, 1957
AppellantVasthimal Joraji Bhural and Co.
RespondentState of Mysore
Appellant AdvocateK. Srinivasan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateShantharaju, Adv. for E.S. Venkataramaiah
Excerpt:
- labour & servicesappointment on compassionate grounds: [p.d.dinakaran, c.j. & v.g.sabhahit,j] karnataka civil services (appointment on compassionate grounds) rules, 1966, rule 6(4) - compassionate appointment - claim for higher post authorities overlooked qualification of applicant already possessed at time of his appointment and also ignored representation of applicant held, merely because authorities have passed an appointment order to a lower post, it will not take away the right of petitioner to claim the higher post. rule 6(4) is not attracted. .....a cell or a battery is an accumulator only when it is possible to recharge it after the electrical energy stored in it is expended and so it gets discharged whatever may be the process by which it can again be so charged. so, the decisive attribute is the possibility of an accumulation of electrical energy in that cell or battery again and again when the accumulated energy is expended. a cell or battery in which it is possible to accumulate such energy only once and in which such energy cannot again be stored, is not an accumulator. so, a battery which cannot again be used as a means of storing electrical energy once it gets discharged, is not an accumulator. 9. it is undisputed that the dry battery cells sold by the petitioner could not be recharged when they got discharged......
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The petitioner is a person who carries on business in certain dry battery cells described as 'Eveready energisers' for transistors and other electronic appliances. The sales of these energisers were included in his turnover for the period between 1960 and 1964 and the Commercial Tax Officer determined the sales tax payable at the rate specified in the third column of the fifty-third item in the Second Schedule of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

2. The petitioner, however, contended that the 'energisers' did not fall within that item but fell within the sixty-first item of the Second Schedule, and that sales tax could not be demanded at the higher rate specified in the fifty-third item, but only at the lower rate mentioned against item No. 61.

3. The fifty-third item of the Second Schedule at the relevant point of time read :

'SECOND SCHEDULE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Description Rate of of the goods tax (1) (2) (3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 53. Wireless reception instruments and apparatus and component parts thereof including all electrical valves, accumulators, amplifiers Seven and loud speakers which are not per cent. (7%)' specially designed for purposes other than wireless reception. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Item No. 61, as it then stood, read : 'SECOND SCHEDULE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Description Rate of of the goods tax (1) (2) (3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. All electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances including fans and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenware and Four porcelain and all other accessories. per cent (4 %)' ----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Commercial Tax Officer was of the opinion that 'energisers' were accumulators within the meaning of the fifty-third item and negatived the convention of the petitioner that they were not.

5. The petitioner's appeals to the Deputy Commissioner, and to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed, and in these revision petitions Dr. Srinivasan contends that the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal did not properly comprehend the meaning of the word 'accumulators' occurring in item 53.

6. Since it is undisputed that if the 'energisers' sold by the petitioner to his constituents are not 'accumulators', they would fall within the sixty-first item and not the fifty-third item; it becomes necessary for us to examine the question whether the energisers sold by the petitioner are accumulators.

7. It seems to us that they are not. An 'accumulator' according to the Chambers's Technical Dictionary (revised edition 1958) is a voltaic cell which can be charged and recharged. That is also the meaning contained in the Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary (revised edition), which says that an accumulator is a means of storing energy especially, an electric battery that can be recharged by sending a reverse current through it.

8. So, both according to the technical and popular sense in which the word 'accumulator' is understood, a cell or a battery is an accumulator only when it is possible to recharge it after the electrical energy stored in it is expended and so it gets discharged whatever may be the process by which it can again be so charged. So, the decisive attribute is the possibility of an accumulation of electrical energy in that cell or battery again and again when the accumulated energy is expended. A cell or battery in which it is possible to accumulate such energy only once and in which such energy cannot again be stored, is not an accumulator. So, a battery which cannot again be used as a means of storing electrical energy once it gets discharged, is not an accumulator.

9. It is undisputed that the dry battery cells sold by the petitioner could not be recharged when they got discharged. So, they were not accumulators within the meaning of that word occurring in the fifty-third item.

10. If they do not fall within the fifty-third item, they can fall only within the residuary sixty-first item, and so, the Commercial Tax Officer could have demanded tax only at the rate specified against that item and not at the rate mentioned against the fifty-third item.

11. So, we allow these revision petitions and direct the Commercial Tax Officer to make an appropriate modification in the orders of assessment made by him.

12. The petitioner will get his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100, one set.

13. Petitions allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //