Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Abdul Khaliq Mistri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 227 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1979]43STC428(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentAbdul Khaliq Mistri
Advocates: The Standing Counsel
Excerpt:
.....in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of tube-well filters was assessable to sales tax as spare parts of machinery for the assessment year 1968-69 2. the question is as to whether filters of tube-well should be assessed as spare parts of machinery or as an unclassified item. it is common knowledge that filter is an essential part of a tube-well as it prevents substances other than water from going into the suction tube. in case a filter is not titted to the suction tube of a tube-well, the tube-well would become choked and unworkable after some time. it is as such an essential part of the tube-well machinery. the manner in which the filter is manufactured is not relevant to decide the controversy as to whether it is spare part of the tube-well. 3. the question referred is..........in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of tube-well filters was assessable to sales tax as spare parts of machinery for the assessment year 1968-69 2. the question is as to whether filters of tube-well should be assessed as spare parts of machinery or as an unclassified item. both the appellate authority and the judge (revisions) have taken the view that filters cannot be assessed either as machinery or as spare parts. the judge (revisions) found that filters were made by perforated tubes and fitted gauze over it. it is common knowledge that filter is an essential part of a tube-well as it prevents substances other than water from going into the suction tube. in case a filter is not titted to the suction tube of a tube-well, the tube-well would become choked and unworkable after.....
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The Revising Authority, Meerut, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of tube-well filters was assessable to sales tax as spare parts of machinery for the assessment year 1968-69

2. The question is as to whether filters of tube-well should be assessed as spare parts of machinery or as an unclassified item. Both the appellate authority and the Judge (Revisions) have taken the view that filters cannot be assessed either as machinery or as spare parts. The Judge (Revisions) found that filters were made by perforated tubes and fitted gauze over it. It is common knowledge that filter is an essential part of a tube-well as it prevents substances other than water from going into the suction tube. In case a filter is not titted to the suction tube of a tube-well, the tube-well would become choked and unworkable after some time. It is as such an essential part of the tube-well machinery. The manner in which the filter is manufactured is not relevant to decide the controversy as to whether it is spare part of the tube-well. Filters being fitted to all the tube-wells and being an essential part of the suction pipe, they are nothing but spare parts of machinery. Both the revising authority and the appellate authority were thus in error in holding it to be an unclassified item.

3. The question referred is answered by saying that tube-well filters were assessable to sales tax as spare parts of machinery for the assessment year 1968-69. As none has appeared to oppose this reference, there shall be no order as to costs.


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