Skip to content


Spheroidel Castings Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C. Nos. 294 and 295 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1977]40STC596(Mad)
AppellantSpheroidel Castings Ltd.
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu
Appellant AdvocateT. Srinivasamoorthi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdditional Government Pleader
Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
- - the conclusion of the tribunal based on the statute as well as on the decision of the supreme court is, therefore, correct. we are, therefore, satisfied that the assessee's claim regarding these two items of turnover, namely, rs. we are not satisfied that this contention has any merit......1970,(i) the exemption in respect of the tax payable by any dealer under the said act, on the sales of agricultural implements (other than tractors, bulldozers and tillers).5. the claim of the assessee is that these castings, which are used as parts of mould board plough, come within the scope of this notification as parts of agricultural implements. the learned additional government pleader submitted that these moulds themselves did not come within the scope of agricultural implements and that the agricultural implements contemplated by such notification would only be those implements which are liable to be used as such and not parts thereof.6. we consider that the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee deserves to be accepted. the government has granted exemption on the.....
Judgment:

Sethuraman, J.

1. In these petitions filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, there are two points in dispute. The first relates to a sum of Rs. 859.27. The said sum represents the sale of certain miscellaneous items of empties and discarded materials. These materials were acquired by the assessee in the course of its business. The assessee claimed that the sale was not in the course of business. However, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that in view of explanation to Section 2(d), even such transaction when they were incidental or ancillary or in connection with the business were taxable and, in support of its decision, relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. [1973] 31 S.T.C. 426. The Tribunal, therefore, sustained the addition as made by the sales tax authorities. It is this conclusion which is now challenged.

2. In view of the definition in Section 2(d) read with the explanation thereof, it is clear that even the transactions incidental or ancillary to the business carried on by the assessee will be taxable. The test as to whether the assessee is carrying on- business in the particular items could no longer hold the field. The conclusion of the Tribunal based on the statute as well as on the decision of the Supreme Court is, therefore, correct. We do not find any error so as to justify any interference on our part with reference to this conclusion.

3. The next point in dispute relates to a sum of Rs. 28,451 for the assessment year 1970-71. In the revision petition relating to the assessment year 1971-72, which is also before us, the turnover involved is Rs. 29,553.10. These turnovers relate to the supplies of castings which are said to be used as parts of mould board plough. The assessee claimed that these items of turnover were not liable to be taxed in view of a notification under Section 17 of the Act dated 18th March, 1970. The sales tax authorities did not accept this claim based on the notification and the Tribunal also confirmed the conclusion of the sales tax authorities. The assessee seeks to challenge this part of the order of the Tribunal also.

4. The notification, in so far as it is material, runs as follows :

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes with effect on and from the 1st April, 1970,

(i) the exemption in respect of the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act, on the sales of agricultural implements (other than tractors, bulldozers and tillers).

5. The claim of the assessee is that these castings, which are used as parts of mould board plough, come within the scope of this notification as parts of agricultural implements. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that these moulds themselves did not come within the scope of agricultural implements and that the agricultural implements contemplated by such notification would only be those implements which are liable to be used as such and not parts thereof.

6. We consider that the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee deserves to be accepted. The Government has granted exemption on the sales of agricultural implements. The word 'implements' means tools or instruments. Parts of tools and parts of instruments would also be implements. An implement cannot be taken as meaning only a whole piece. Otherwise, the notification would have been more specific. In fact, the Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, a company which produces tractors, had addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes enquiring as to whether the concession would be available for parts of the agricultural implements. By his letter dated 30th June, 1970, the Commissioner stated 'The petitioners are informed that what is applicable to the main agricultural implements will equally apply to the parts also and, as such, the parts of agricultural implements referred to in Board's ref: A.2. 1339/70 dated 12th May, 1970, are also eligible for exemption.' This letter appears to us to bring out what was intended in the notification granting exemption mentioned already. In fact, the amended notification now in force has made this clear. We are, therefore, satisfied that the assessee's claim regarding these two items of turnover, namely, Rs. 28,451 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 29,553.10 for the assessment year 1971-72 deserves to be accepted and we, therefore, set aside the Tribunal's order on this point and hold that these two items of turnover will not be taxed in the hands of the assessee.

7. The learned counsel for the assessee raised another contention peculiar to the assessment year 1970-71 and that was that the assessment had already been completed in which such exemption was granted. According to the learned counsel, the assessing authority merely issued a notice without referring to any provision showing that he proposed to revise the assessment. According to the learned counsel, this notice without reference to Section 16 of the Act would not clothe the said authority with a power to revise the assessment. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel was that in order to vest himself with a power to revise the assessment which had been completed and become final, the authorities should take powers under the particular provisions of the Act in order to disturb the finality of the said assessment. We are not satisfied that this contention has any merit. There is no dispute that the assessing authority had power to revise the assessment under Section 16 of the Act. The mere omission to refer to Section 16 of the Act in the communication sent to the assessee does not, in any manner, show that the assessing authority did not act under that particular provision. Taking the letter to the assessee into account, it would be clear that the assessing authority wanted to act only under that provision. In these circumstances, we see no merit in this contention. Tax Revision Case No. 294 of 1974 is partly allowed and 295 of 1974 is allowed. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. One set (in T.C. No. 295 of 1974).


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