Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether industrial hoists and high raised platform were classifiable as "lifts" under entry 133 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or as "machinery" under item 81, applying the common parlance test to an undefined commodity.
Analysis: The relevant expressions were not defined in the Act, so classification had to be determined by their understood meaning in common parlance. In common parlance, lifts denote mechanical contrivances ordinarily used in buildings for carrying passengers or goods between floors, while the hoists in question were industrial devices used for raising workers and goods to different levels and for movement within industrial premises. The Tribunal's view that such goods fell within machinery was supported by the functional distinction between building lifts and industrial hoists. The later inclusion of hoists in entry 133 also indicated that, at the material time, hoists were not intended to be included within that entry.
Conclusion: Hoists and the connected equipment were not covered by entry 133 as lifts and were correctly treated as machinery; the revision petitions filed by the Revenue failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity is not defined in the taxing statute, its classification must be based on its ordinary/common parlance meaning, and a later amendment including that commodity in a taxing entry may indicate that it was outside the entry earlier.