Skip to content


State of Madras Vs. Indian Oxygen Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 150 of 1966 and Revision No. 98
Judge
Reported in[1968]22STC476(Mad)
AppellantState of Madras
RespondentIndian Oxygen Limited
Appellant Advocate The Special Government Pleader
Respondent Advocate T.N.C. Rangarajan, Adv., i/b., ;King and ; Partridge, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredMadurai v. Ravi Auto Stores
Excerpt:
- .....was elaborately considered by us in tax case no. 140 of 19641 in which we were of the view that welding rods were not within the ambit of the entry. learned special government pleader tried to distinguish tax case no. 140 of 19641, but he has not succeeded in pointing out any difference. the tribunal had a demonstration before it, and on that basis it has stated that the rods by user of oxygen gas melted and became non-existent in the process of welding. that means the welding rods were capable of user ' without electrical energy. even otherwise, the tribunal was correct in its view that the rods did not fall within the ambit of 'electrical goods' as defined in entry 41, because the rods themselves neither generate nor transmit electricity. but in the process of welding, the rods, due.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, J.

1. The only point in this case is whether arc welding rods are electrical goods within the meaning of entry 41 of the First Schedule of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This point was elaborately considered by us in Tax Case No. 140 of 19641 in which we were of the view that welding rods were not within the ambit of the entry. Learned Special Government Pleader tried to distinguish Tax Case No. 140 of 19641, but he has not succeeded in pointing out any difference. The Tribunal had a demonstration before it, and on that basis it has stated that the rods by user of oxygen gas melted and became non-existent in the process of welding. That means the welding rods were capable of user ' without electrical energy. Even otherwise, the Tribunal was correct in its view that the rods did not fall within the ambit of 'electrical goods' as defined in entry 41, because the rods themselves neither generate nor transmit electricity. But in the process of welding, the rods, due to the heat produced, melt and disappear. Following our judgment in Tax Case No. 140 of 1964, Since reported as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division, Madurai v. Ravi Auto Stores [1968] 22 S.T.C. 172 we dismiss this tax case. No costs.


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