Accessory taxation turns on actual adaptation to the principal sprinkler, not mere sale or use with the system.

Pipes, pumps, engines, motors and similar items sold with a sprinkler were not taxable as accessories or machinery under entry 20 merely because they were used in the sprinkler setup. The controlling test was whether each item was generally adapted as an adjunct, accompaniment or addition for the convenient and effective use of the sprinkler itself; independently usable articles could not be included automatically. A clarification treating all goods sold as part of a sprinkler system as taxable under entry 20 was therefore unsustainable, and the assessing authority had to examine each article separately under the correct test.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pipes, pumps, engines, motors and similar articles sold along with a sprinkler could be taxed as accessories or machinery under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether the Commissioner's clarification treating all items sold as part of a sprinkler system as taxable under entry 20 was correct.

Issue (i): Whether pipes, pumps, engines, motors and similar articles sold along with a sprinkler could be taxed as accessories or machinery under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Entry 20 covered machinery, and the relevant inquiry was whether an article was an accessory to the sprinkler itself. Articles of common use that could be employed independently and had utility elsewhere were not accessories merely because they were purchased for use with a sprinkler. The controlling test was whether the article was generally adapted as an adjunct, accompaniment or addition for the convenient and effective use of the sprinkler. Items that merely conveyed water or were otherwise independently usable could not be brought within the entry simply because they were sold with the sprinkler system.

Conclusion: Such articles were not automatically taxable as accessories or machinery under entry 20 merely because they were purchased for installation with a sprinkler; each article had to be examined to see whether it was an accessory to the sprinkler.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's clarification treating all items sold as part of a sprinkler system as taxable under entry 20 was correct.

Analysis: The clarification proceeded on an incorrect assumption that everything sold as part of a sprinkler system fell within entry 20. The Court held that the levy turned on whether a particular item was an accessory to a sprinkler, not on the vague and potentially manipulable idea of a sprinkler system. The assessing authority was required to consider each article afresh in the light of the proper legal test.

Conclusion: The clarification was incorrect and could not be sustained; the assessments based on it also could not stand to the extent they applied entry 20 to the disputed articles.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned circular and assessments were set aside to the extent they applied entry 20 to the disputed articles, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: An article is an accessory only if it is generally adapted as an adjunct or accompaniment for the convenient and effective use of the principal article, and not merely because it is sold or used along with it.

---