T.V. antenna treated as an accessory, with sales tax at six per cent upheld under the applicable notification regime.

A T.V. antenna was treated as an accessory, not an inseparable component of a T.V. set, because it did not form an essential integral part of the set's basic use and only improved reception and picture clarity. On that basis, the applicable sales tax notifications were applied to the antenna as an accessory, and the levy at six per cent was upheld as valid. The challenge based on an earlier discriminatory notification did not affect the assessments, since they were governed by the later notification regime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a T.V. antenna is an inseparable component of a T.V. set or only an accessory. (ii) Whether sales tax was correctly levied at six per cent under the relevant notifications under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether a T.V. antenna is an inseparable component of a T.V. set or only an accessory.

Analysis: The distinction between a component and an accessory depends on whether the item forms an essential integral part of the main product and is necessary for its basic use, or whether it merely improves efficiency or performance. A T.V. set can be used for multiple purposes even without an antenna, and the antenna serves to improve reception and picture clarity when receiving broadcast signals. On that footing, the antenna does not constitute an essential integral part of the T.V. set.

Conclusion: The T.V. antenna is only an accessory and not a component of the T.V. set, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether sales tax was correctly levied at six per cent under the relevant notifications under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Once the antenna is treated as an accessory, the revised levy under the applicable notifications becomes operative. The challenge based on the earlier discriminatory notification did not assist the assessee on the facts, because the assessments in question were governed by the later notification structure under which the applicable rate was six per cent. The earlier invalidity of a different notification did not alter the legality of the revised levy applied here.

Conclusion: The levy of sales tax at six per cent was valid and correct, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the product was held to be an accessory and the revised tax rate was upheld as lawful under the applicable notification regime.

Ratio Decidendi: An item that is not an essential integral part of the principal product, but only enhances its performance or efficiency, is an accessory and may be taxed accordingly under the applicable notification scheme.

---