Skip to content


Shadi Cycle Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference No. 598 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1971]27STC56(All)
AppellantShadi Cycle Industries
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant AdvocateJ.N. Dubey and ;N.C. Goyal, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
Excerpt:
- - the component parts of a cycle seat like springs, nuts and bolts and the leather covers separately cannot be called as cycle parts. 51 held that glass tubes and glass rods which were used for fabrication of articles like toys and test-tubes could not be regarded as 'glassware' on the view that the term 'glassware' contemplates finished articles of glass which were capable of being sold to the consumer. the glass rods and glass tubes in that case were sold to other dealers who utilised them in the fabrication of finished articles like test-tubes and toys. the accessories contemplated by the notification are the accessories of the vehicles like bicycles, tricycles, perambulators as a whole and not accessories of their parts as has been held by this bench in commissioner of sales tax..........court on the following two questions:(1) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the seat covers made of thick tanned leather could be treated to be commodity different from tanned leather?(2) if the answer to question no. (1) is in the affirmative, whether such leather covers were taxable as unclassified goods or leather goods or as accessories of cycle or as cycle parts?2. the dispute between the assessee and the revenue relates to assessment year 1961-62 and concerns the turnover of cycle seat covers. the seat covers are made of hard tanned leather which are component parts of a cycle seat or saddle. the department has assessed the turnover of these covers at 5 per cent. as falling in entry no. 34 of notification no. st.-1363/ x-1045 (19) (1960) dated 5th april, 1961,.....
Judgment:

R.L. Gulati, J.

1. At the instance of M/s. Shadi Cycle Industries, Agra, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted this statement of the case and has invited the opinion of this court on the following two questions:

(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the seat covers made of thick tanned leather could be treated to be commodity different from tanned leather?

(2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether such leather covers were taxable as unclassified goods or leather goods or as accessories of cycle or as cycle parts?

2. The dispute between the assessee and the revenue relates to assessment year 1961-62 and concerns the turnover of cycle seat covers. The seat covers are made of hard tanned leather which are component parts of a cycle seat or saddle. The department has assessed the turnover of these covers at 5 per cent. as falling in entry No. 34 of Notification No. ST.-1363/ X-1045 (19) (1960) dated 5th April, 1961, issued under Section 3-A of the Act. That entry reads:

Bicycles, tricycles and perambulators and parts and accessories thereof other than tyres and tubes.

3. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that the leather covers should have been taxed as tanned leather or as unclassified goods. In the alternative its contention was that leather seat covers would fall within entry No. 5 of another notification of 5th April, 1961, being Notification No. S.T.-1367/X-1045 (19) (1960) issued under the second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 3 at the rate of 3 paise per rupee as prescribed in that notification.

4. We are of the opinion that the first contention put forward on behalf of the assessee is not correct. A leather seat cover of a cycle is definitely a commodity different from tanned leather from which it is fabricated. Tanned leather and an article made of tanned leather are certainly two different commodities and the argument that a leather cover can be flattened into tanned leather is no ground for holding that a cycle seat cover still remains tanned leather.

5. We are, however, of the opinion that the leather covers are leather goods and are covered by entry No. 5 of the notification issued under the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and not by entry No. 34 of the notification issued under Section 3-A. A cycle seat, no doubt, is a cycle part but it becomes a cycle part only when it takes the shape of a cycle seat. A cycle seat comes into being only when the leather cover is mounted upon the springs and is fixed in place with nuts and bolts. The component parts of a cycle seat like springs, nuts and bolts and the leather covers separately cannot be called as cycle parts. The leather covers, no doubt, can be used only in the manufacture of cycle seats but by themselves they are not cycle parts. They are not sold directly to the consumer. A cycle owner buys a complete cycle seat and not its component parts separately. On a similar consideration, this Bench in The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Manohar Glass Works (Sales Tax Reference No. 60 of 1968 decided on 2nd February, 1970) [1971] 27 S.T.C. 51 held that glass tubes and glass rods which were used for fabrication of articles like toys and test-tubes could not be regarded as 'glassware' on the view that the term 'glassware' contemplates finished articles of glass which were capable of being sold to the consumer. The glass rods and glass tubes in that case were sold to other dealers who utilised them in the fabrication of finished articles like test-tubes and toys. This Bench held that it is only the finished articles that could be termed as 'glassware'. On the same analogy, leather covers used in the manufacture of cycle seats cannot by themselves be regarded as cycle parts. It is only the finished cycle seats or saddles that can be so regarded.

6. A leather cover cannot also be regarded as an accessory within the meaning of the relevant notification because it is not an accessory of the cycle even though it may be an accessory of a part of the cycle, viz., its seat. The accessories contemplated by the notification are the accessories of the vehicles like bicycles, tricycles, perambulators as a whole and not accessories of their parts as has been held by this Bench in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Brijvasi Traders (Sales Tax Reference No. 238 of 1969 decided on 26th February, 1970) [1971] 27 S.T.C. 55 The term leather goods, on the other hand, has been used in the relevant notification in a comprehensive manner which includes all articles made of leather except footwear. The leather covers in question are undoubtedly leather goods and fall squarely in the notification relating to leather goods.

7. We accordingly answer question No. (1) in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the department and question No. (2) by saying that leather covers are taxable as leather goods under Notification No. S.T.-1367/ X-1045(19)(1960) dated 5th April, 1961, and not as cycle parts or accessories within the Notification No. S.T.-1363/X-1045(19)(1960) dated 5th April, 1961.

8. As the success of the parties is divided, we make no order as to costs. The fee of the learned counsel is assessed at Rs. 100.


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