Accessory classification turns on ordinary use, and reassessment beyond limitation needs failure to disclose material particulars.

Leather cases for radios are classified by their ordinary or predominant use, and items made to fit and suit radios may be treated as radio accessories even if they could have other uses. The article applies the principle that accessory status does not require confinement to a single machine. It also states that reassessment or revision may proceed where an assessee claimed a concessional rate and the record shows the claim was accepted, but reopening beyond the normal period is barred unless there was a failure to disclose turnover or material particulars. For 1971-72, the extended limitation period was unavailable because the relevant sales were already apparent from the assessment file.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether leather cases for radios are accessories and therefore taxable as radio accessories rather than general goods; (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the assessment and whether reopening of the 1971-72 assessment was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether leather cases for radios are accessories and therefore taxable as radio accessories rather than general goods.

Analysis: The classification depended on the ordinary or predominant use of the article. An item need not be confined to a single machine to qualify as an accessory; what matters is whether it is generally intended to serve or suit the instrument in question. The leather cases were made to fit radios and suit their size and fittings, and the mere possibility of other uses did not alter their ordinary character.

Conclusion: The leather cases are accessories to radios and are taxable as radio accessories.

Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the assessment and whether reopening of the 1971-72 assessment was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the assessee claimed the concessional rate and the assessing authority accepted that claim, so there was an assessment made on a claim raised by the assessee. Revision could therefore be considered under the reopening provisions. However, for the year 1971-72 the reopening was made more than four years after the end of the assessment year, and the extended period was unavailable because there was no failure to disclose the turnover or material particulars; the nature of the sales was already apparent from the assessment file.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was not lacking, but the reopening for 1971-72 was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The tax revision concerning 1971-72 succeeded on limitation, while the challenge for 1972-73 failed, leaving the parties with divided success and their respective liabilities determined accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax classification, the determining test is the ordinary or predominant use of the article, and reassessment beyond the normal period of limitation is permissible only where there is a legally supportable failure to disclose material turnover or particulars.

---