Divan, C.J. - The principal question in each of these four writ petitions is whether seat covers are accessories or not. It is clear in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.C. Industries vs. State of A.P., that the term 'accessories' in the schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is used to describe goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition. 'Accessories' are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. The deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other suses also. It is its general or predominant user which determines the category in which an article will fall. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it is clear that seat covers will also be 'accessories' and since powers of revision have been utilised to bring the turnover in respect be said that revisional powers have been wrongly utilised by the Commissioner.
2. This conclusion would ordinarily dispose of each of these writ petitions. However, in Writ Petitions Nos. 4570 and 4659 of 1975, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in each of these petitions that over and above powers exercisable under S. 20, being revisional powers, the officer concerned has utilised powers under s. 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. He contends that under S. 14(4), inter alis, if the dealer has been assessed at a rate lower than the correct rate, then under clause (c), the officer concerned can assessee at the correct rate the turnover that has been assessed at a lower rate. He contended that, in the instant case, the powers that have been exercised are powers under S. 14(4)(c) and not the power under S. 20 It is obvious that if the case falls under S. 14(4), the orders would be time-barred because under S. 14(4-A) assessment under s. 14(4) has to be made within a period of four years from the expiry of the year of assessment. The year under consideration was the assessment year 1969-70 and the notice for reopening the case was issued on 9th June, 1975. In Writ Petition No. 4659 of 1975, the Assessment year is 1970-71 and the notice was issued in June, 1975. It is contended that since the period of 4 years in each of these two cases had expired after the end of the year of assessment under consideration, that is, after the expiry of 1st April, 1974, in Writ Petition No. 4570 of 1975 and 1st April, 1975. So far as Writ Petition No. 4659 of 1975 is concerned, bar of limitation under S. 14(4-A) would apply and, at any rate, orders passed increasing the tax after this notice in these Writ Petition Nos. 4570 and 4659 of 1975 should be held to be time-barred.
3. In view of the decision in State for A.P. vs. Sri Rama L.S. Rice Mills it is obvious that, in the instant case, the reopening would fall under S. 14(4) because at the time when the matter was originally before the Sales Tax Officer, he had not considered whether the seat covers were accessories or not and that question was not against before him. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision of the Sales Tax officer was wrong which needed revision or which can be revised under S. 20 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. The cases would therefore fairly and squarely fall under S. 14(4) and, therefore, the bar of limitation under S. 14(4) and, therefore, the bar of limitation under S. 14(4) would clearly apply to Writ Petitions Nos. 4570 and 4659 of 1975 and they are, therefore, allowed with costs each of the two cases. The other two matters, Writ Petitions Nos. 4689 and 4693 of 1975, are dismissed with costs.