Skip to content


State of Madras Vs. E.A.N. Meerakasim Carnatic Seat Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C. Nos. 336 of 1969 and 182 of 1970 (Revision Nos. 211 of 1969 and 125 of 1970)
Judge
Reported in[1973]32STC463(Mad)
AppellantState of Madras
RespondentE.A.N. Meerakasim Carnatic Seat Company
Appellant AdvocateK. Venkataswami, First Assistant Government Pleader
Respondent AdvocateP.M. Jummakhan, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases Referred(Khetty Traders v. State of Madras
Excerpt:
- - we agree with the tribunal that upholstery items like seat covers are automobile accessories. the assessee had manufactured seat covers and offered them for sale just like any other commodity he was dealing in......but for two different years. in the two years, the assessee has been taxed on its sales of cycle seat covers treating them as sales of accessories to cycles covered by item 38 of the first schedule to the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959. the assessee's contention that the seat covers sold by him cannot be treated as accessories to cycles and as such the sales are subject to multipoint tax alone was rejected by the assessing authority. this view has not been accepted by the tribunal. the tribunal has taken the view that cycle seat covers which are manufactured by the assessee and sold cannot be treated as accessories or parts of bicycle so as to bring them within item 38 of the first schedule to the act and, therefore, the goods are liable to only multi-point tax.2. revenue.....
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. These cases arise in relation to the same assessee, but for two different years. In the two years, the assessee has been taxed on its sales of cycle seat covers treating them as sales of accessories to cycles covered by item 38 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee's contention that the seat covers sold by him cannot be treated as accessories to cycles and as such the sales are subject to multipoint tax alone was rejected by the assessing authority. This view has not been accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the view that cycle seat covers which are manufactured by the assessee and sold cannot be treated as accessories or parts of bicycle so as to bring them within item 38 of the First Schedule to the Act and, therefore, the goods are liable to only multi-point tax.

2. Revenue contends before us that the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this court in T. C. No. 107 of 1971 (Khetty Traders v. State of Madras [1973] 32 S.T.C. 346, wherein seat covers for cars have been held to be automobile accessories. In that case also, it was contended that the seat covers are not necessary at all for running the vehicle and, therefore, they cannot be said to be accessories of motor cars. The Tribunal therein had held that seat covers are automobile accessories. While upholding the Tribunal's order, this court in T. C. No. 107 of 1971 (Khetty Traders v. State of Madras [1973] 32 S.T.C. 346, expressed:

We agree with the Tribunal that upholstery items like seat covers are automobile accessories. It may be that such items are strictly not necessary for running the vehicle. But, in our opinion, that is not the only test. It is certainly an accompaniment to the seat of the car but unessential for the running of the car. Once the canvass cloth has been converted into seat covers, it becomes an auto-part or accessory.

3. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Free India Cycle Industries [1970] 26 S.T.C. 428 and Shadi Cycle Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 27 S.T.C. 56.

4. On a due consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the question whether the seat cover is an accessory or not cannot be decided with reference to the necessity or otherwise for such a cover for the effective use of the cycle. Seat cover is definitely an accessory or accompaniment to the cycle seat. In this case, it is not as if seat covers were made to order. The assessee had manufactured seat covers and offered them for sale just like any other commodity he was dealing in. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the assessee is not dealing in cycle or cycle parts and, therefore, the sale of seat covers cannot be said to be a sale of accessory to a cycle. But the fact that the assessee does not deal in cycle or cycle parts will not decide the issue as to whether the seat covers sold by the assessee are accessories to the cycles. It is not also the case of the assessee that cycle covers sold by him could be put to any other use. They could be used only as covers for the cycle seats. Therefore, following the decision of this court in T. C. No. 107 of 1971 (Khetty Traders v. State of Madras [1973] 32 S.T.C. 346, these tax cases are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


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