Accessory classification and reassessment limitation under sales tax law turn on ordinary use and prior assessment scope

Seat covers were treated as accessories under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act because the controlling test was their ordinary or predominant use as an aid or addition, and an article need not be confined to one instrument to qualify as an accessory. The reopening was held to be reassessment under section 14(4), not revision under section 20, because the earlier assessment had not considered the accessory issue. Where the reassessment notices were issued after the four-year period under section 14(4-A), they were time-barred; the barred writ petitions succeeded, while the remaining petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether seat covers are accessories under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the impugned action was one of revision under section 20 or reassessment under section 14(4), and if reassessment, whether it was barred by limitation under section 14(4-A).

Issue (i): Whether seat covers are accessories under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The controlling test was the ordinary or predominant use of the article. Accessories are goods used as an aid or addition and are not confined to a single machine or instrument. An article may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument, and it is not enough that it may also serve other uses. Applying that principle, seat covers fall within the category of accessories.

Conclusion: Seat covers are accessories under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned action was revision under section 20 or reassessment under section 14(4), and if reassessment, whether it was barred by limitation under section 14(4-A).

Analysis: The matter before the Sales Tax Officer had not included consideration of whether seat covers were accessories. The subsequent action therefore amounted to reassessment under section 14(4) rather than revision under section 20. Since section 14(4-A) required such reassessment to be made within four years from the expiry of the year of assessment, the notices issued after that period were time-barred in the two writ petitions where the limitation had expired.

Conclusion: The proceedings were reassessment proceedings under section 14(4) and were barred by limitation under section 14(4-A) in the two cases where the statutory period had expired.

Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging the barred reassessment were allowed, while the remaining petitions were dismissed, leaving the assessee successful only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: An article is an accessory if its ordinary or predominant use is as an aid or addition, and a reopening that raises a question not earlier considered by the assessing authority is reassessment governed by the applicable limitation period rather than revision.

---