TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Car seat covers not accessories under Karnataka Sales Tax Act Entry 73. Legal ruling overturns tribunal decision.</h1> The court determined that 'car seat covers' should not be classified as accessories of motor vehicles under Entry No. 73 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. ... Motor vehicles - Accessory - Connotation and scope of Issues involved: Interpretation of Entry No. 73 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act regarding classification of 'car seat covers' as accessories of motor vehicles.The revision petition raised the question of whether 'car seat covers' could be considered as accessories of motor vehicles under Entry No. 73 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The petitioner contended that seat covers are accessories only of a part of the car, the seats, and therefore should not be taxed at the higher rate applicable to motor vehicle accessories.The Deputy Commissioner directed the disputed turnover relating to car seat covers to be taxed at the prescribed rate under Entry No. 73, leading to an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the Deputy Commissioner, considering seat covers as accessories enhancing the convenience and beauty of motor vehicles.The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Entry No. 73, which covers articles used generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles. The debate centered on whether accessories must contribute to the convenience, beauty, or effectiveness of the entire vehicle or if they could be specific to certain parts of the vehicle.The court analyzed previous judgments and observed that accessories should aid or add to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of the vehicle as a whole, not just a specific part. The decision emphasized that accessories under Entry No. 73 should be useful for the effective operation of the vehicle as a whole, which seat covers did not fulfill.The court also considered the legislative intent behind the wording of Entry No. 73 and compared it to other entries in the Second Schedule. It concluded that seat covers, while enhancing comfort, did not serve as aids to the vehicle as a whole and therefore did not fall within the ambit of Entry No. 73.Ultimately, the revision petition was allowed, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner, and restoring the decision of the assessing authority. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
