Skip to content


The State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Punjab Motor Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 98 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1969]24STC411(P& H)
AppellantThe State of Punjab and ors.
RespondentPunjab Motor Company
Appellant Advocate B.S. Dhillon, Adv. General
Respondent AdvocateNemo
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and William Jacks and Company Limited v. The State of Madras
Excerpt:
.....amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to..........four letters patent appeals nos. 98, 75, 74 and 44 of 1967 filed against the order of the learned single judge holding that under the punjab general sales tax act, the spare parts of tractors do not fall under the category of luxury goods under the heading 'spare parts of motor vehicles'.2. as has been discussed by the learned single judge, the tractor cannot be categorised as a 'motor vehicle' and for this, reliance was placed on two cases of the madras high court (state of madras v. marshall sons and company (india) limited [1954] 5 s.t.c. 305) and william jacks and company limited v. the state of madras [1956] 7. s.t.c. 327) in the first case, it was observed as follows:-an agricultural tractor, though its propulsion is by a motor, is not a vehicle within the meaning of section,.....
Judgment:

1. This order will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 98, 75, 74 and 44 of 1967 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge holding that under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, the spare parts of tractors do not fall under the category of luxury goods under the heading 'spare parts of motor vehicles'.

2. As has been discussed by the learned Single Judge, the tractor cannot be categorised as a 'motor vehicle' and for this, reliance was placed on two cases of the Madras High Court (State of Madras v. Marshall Sons and Company (India) Limited [1954] 5 S.T.C. 305) and William Jacks and Company Limited v. The State of Madras [1956] 7. S.T.C. 327) In the first case, it was observed as follows:-

An agricultural tractor, though its propulsion is by a motor, is not a vehicle within the meaning of Section, 3(2)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, because it is not a thing which is employed to carry either persons or goods on land. The meaning of 'vehicle' is a conveyance or a carriage. An agricultural tractor is not used to convey anything and it is employed for agricultural operations and is driven by a driver.

3. It was also noticed that the notification, which categorised 'luxury goods', also showed that the tractor was treated as a separate item and only a fixed sum of Rs. 100 per tractor was to be levied as sales tax irrespective of its sale price. It was clear from this that the tractor is not luxury goods and obviously it could not be the intention of the Legislature that although tractor may not be luxury goods, its spare parts would be luxury goods.

4. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the State, after going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, frankly conceded that it is not possible for him to advance any serious argument challenging the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge.

5. In view of the above, we feel that the learned Single Judge has very thoroughly discussed the point and by no stretch of imagination can the tractor or its spare parts be categorised as 'luxury goods' under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.

6. These letters patent appeals are consequently dismissed with costs.


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