Common parlance test governs sales tax classification of cord wire as electronic goods, not electrical goods.

For sales tax classification, an item must be identified by its intrinsic character and common parlance understanding, and not merely because it transmits electrical energy. A specially designed cord wire used to connect a main switch with a tape recorder instrument was held not to be electrical goods, but electronic goods. The Court also relied on the Revenue's consistent treatment of cord wires as electronic goods in earlier and later years, finding no basis for departure. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cord wire connecting the main switch with the instrument was classifiable as electronic goods or electrical goods for sales tax purposes.

Analysis: The classification turned on whether the item, by its intrinsic nature and popular understanding, answered the description of electrical goods or was only a specially designed component used to transmit electricity to the tape recorder. The Court applied the common parlance test and the principle that an article is not electrical goods merely because it operates with electrical energy; it must itself be regarded as such in ordinary commercial understanding. The Court also noted the long-standing departmental treatment of cord wires as electronic goods in earlier and later assessment years, placing the burden on the Revenue to justify a departure, which it failed to do.

Conclusion: The cord wire did not fall under electrical goods and was to be treated as electronic goods; the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under sales tax law, an item must be identified according to its intrinsic character and common parlance understanding, and a specially designed component used for a limited electronic function cannot be treated as electrical goods merely because it transmits electrical energy.

---