Electrical goods classification depends on the unit sold and use only with electricity; separate component taxation was rejected.

Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, an article was treated as "electrical goods" only if it could not be used except with electrical energy, and the entry was read as illustrative rather than exhaustive. The goods had to be assessed as the unit actually sold, not by isolating components. On that basis, the grinding machine in item 9 of list 1(a) and the pump sets in list 1(b) were within the charging entry, while component electrical motors not sold separately in other machinery could not be treated as separately taxable turnover merely by attributing a fictional independent sale to them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the articles in the specified lists were "electrical goods" within section 3(2)(viii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act; (ii) Whether the value of component electrical motors, not sold separately, could be treated as taxable turnover when the machinery as a whole was not electrical goods.

Issue (i): Whether the articles in the specified lists were "electrical goods" within section 3(2)(viii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The Act did not define "electrical goods" or prescribe an exclusive test. The Court approved the practical test that an article is electrical goods only if it cannot be used except with the application of electrical energy. The expression in the entry was treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive, and the goods had to be considered as a unit, not by splitting off individual components. On that basis, the grinding machine in item 9 and the pump sets were held to be goods usable only with electricity and therefore within the charging entry.

Conclusion: The articles in item 9 of list 1(a) and the pump sets in list 1(b) were electrical goods and taxable under section 3(2)(viii).

Issue (ii): Whether the value of component electrical motors, not sold separately, could be treated as taxable turnover when the machinery as a whole was not electrical goods.

Analysis: The Court held that taxation must proceed on the goods actually sold as a whole. Where the machine as sold did not fall within the category of electrical goods, a component part not sold as an independent item could not be treated as if it were separately sold for purposes of computing taxable turnover. The unity of the sale could not be impaired by attributing a fictional separate sale to the component motor.

Conclusion: The value of the component electrical motors in item 2 of list 1(c) and in the items other than item 9 of list 1(a) was not taxable under section 3(2)(viii) and was liable only under section 3(1)(b).

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part, with the classification of certain articles upheld as electrical goods, but the separate taxation of component motors in non-electrical machinery was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax purposes, an article must be assessed as the unit actually sold, and a component not sold separately cannot be treated as taxable goods unless the machine as a whole can be used only with electrical energy.

---