Commercial parlance test for electrical goods limits ST-18 liability and penalty for transported laundry machine.

The expression "all kinds of electrical goods" in the 31.10.1986 notification must be understood in its commercial sense, not merely by reference to whether an article uses electricity. A laundry machine was held not to be ordinarily treated as electrical goods in commercial parlance, and that view was regarded as a possible one. Even assuming coverage under the notification, penalty under section 22A(7) was not justified because the goods were for personal use, the relevant papers were with the driver, and form ST-18 was produced shortly after inspection.

---

---

Issues: Whether a laundry machine transported in the vehicle fell within the expression "all kinds of electrical goods" under the notification dated 31.10.1986 so as to require form ST-18, and whether penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was justified.

Analysis: The notification covered specified notified goods, including all kinds of electrical goods, but the expression had to be understood in its commercial sense. Although the laundry machine operated on electricity, the Court held that mere use of electrical energy was not ative. The proper inquiry was whether such goods are intrinsically regarded by commercial men as electrical goods. Applying that approach, the Court found that a laundry machine is not ordinarily called electrical goods in commercial parlance, and the Tribunal's view on that aspect was a possible view. Even on the assumption that the machine was covered by the notification, the record showed that the goods were for personal use, the relevant documents were with the driver, and form ST-18 was subsequently produced shortly after inspection. In those circumstances, the facts did not justify imposition of penalty.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the Tribunal's restoration of the appellate order setting aside the penalty was upheld.

---