Skip to content


The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kannika Cycle Stores - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C.P. No. 471 of 1982 (Revision No. 136 of 1982)
Judge
Reported in[1983]53STC429(Mad)
AppellantThe State of Tamil Nadu
RespondentKannika Cycle Stores
Advocates:K.S. Bakthavatsalam, Additional Government Pleader
Cases ReferredYacub Hussain v. State of Tamil Nadu
Excerpt:
- .....this court in yacub hussain v. state of tamil nadu [1980] 46 stc 470 the purpose for which the commodity is used is often a guiding factor to determine its character. in this case, the purpose for which the mirror is sold is to use it as a rear view mirror and not for the purpose of reflection. in this view of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the tribunal in this case. the tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal holding that the mirror, which is normally used as an accessory to cycles, will fall under entry 38 of the First Schedule and not under entry 102 of that schedule.

2. The assessee in this case is a dealer in cycles, and the taxable turnover reported by him for the assessment year 1979-80 was Rs. 1,50,691. In the course of the assessment, the assessing officer determined the turnover of sales of mirrors fitted to cycles and brought them to sales tax at 10 per cent while the assessee's claim was that it should be taxed at 6 per cent. The matter was taken in appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who also justified the assessment of the turnover in cycle mirrors under entry 102 of the First Schedule at 10 per cent. The matter was taken further in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee has sold the mirror as an accessory to the cycle or as its spare part, and therefore, it should be brought under the entry 'accessory to cycle' and not under the entry 'glass and glassware' including sheet glass and plate glass, mirror, laboratory glassware, etc. Admittedly, the assessee is not a dealer in glassware and he is only a dealer in cycles. For persons who require a mirror to be fitted into cycles, the mirror is given as a spare part for the cycle or as an accessory. Therefore, as has already been held by this Court in Yacub Hussain v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 470 the purpose for which the commodity is used is often a guiding factor to determine its character. In this case, the purpose for which the mirror is sold is to use it as a rear view mirror and not for the purpose of reflection. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in this case. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed.


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