1964 (3) TMI 75 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Silk Industry Equipment: Cottage Basin qualifies as machinery under Sales Tax Act

The State of Mysore Versus M. NV Rao

The Karnataka High Court, in a judgment by Justice Tukol, determined that the 'cottage basin' used in the silk industry qualifies as 'machinery' under ... - Issues:Interpretation of whether 'cottage basin' used in the silk industry qualifies as 'machinery' under item 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.Detailed Analysis:The judgment by the Karnataka High Court, delivered by Justice Tukol, addressed the issue of whether a 'cottage basin' used for spinning and reeling silk in the silk industry qualifies as 'machinery' under item 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The respondent, a manufacturer of the apparatus, was assessed for sales tax treating the apparatus as machinery. The respondent contended that the apparatus was a charaka and thus exempt from sales tax under section 8 of the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, Deputy Commissioner, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention. The Tribunal specifically considered whether the apparatus generated power and concluded that it did not, leading them to reject the view that it fell under item 20 of the Act's Second Schedule.The State Government argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering that the Act lacked a specific definition of 'machinery' and that the classification in the Schedule was for tax rates rather than distinguishing power-generating machinery. The Court observed the apparatus in question, the 'cottage basin,' and noted its mechanical contrivances operated with manual power to reel silk threads efficiently and minimize labor. Drawing on precedents like the Privy Council's decision in Corporation of Calcutta v. Cossipore Municipality, the Court emphasized the combined movement of parts in the apparatus achieving a specific result, akin to machinery. The Court also referenced a local case, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, to interpret the term 'machinery' broadly without statutory limitation to self-contained units.Further, the Court referred to a Madras High Court case, Krishnan v. Municipal Prosecutor, which distinguished machinery worked by power from that worked by hand, excluding handlooms from the former category. However, the Court in the present case found that the 'cottage basin' directed natural forces to achieve a specific result, aligning with the Privy Council's definition of machinery. Consequently, the Court held that the 'cottage basin' qualified as machinery under item 20 of the Act's Second Schedule, overturning the Tribunal's decision. The Court allowed the petitions, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and reinstated the Deputy Commissioner's orders, with costs awarded against the respondent.