TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 taxed as vehicle accessories upheld by court. Sales tax rate of 13% confirmed.</h1> <h3>MEHRA BROS. Versus JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER</h3> MEHRA BROS. Versus JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 173 (SC), [1991] 80 STC 233 (SC), 1991 AIR 1017, 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 61, 1991 (1) SCC 514, ... Issues:- Interpretation of Entry 3 of Schedule Ist of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act I of 1959.- Determination of whether car seat covers and upholstery are considered accessories to motor vehicles for sales tax purposes.Analysis:The case involved appeals against a judgment by the Madras High Court dismissing writ petitions related to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act. The appellant, a registered dealer in auto accessories, contested the levy of sales tax at 13% on car seat covers manufactured and supplied by him, claiming they should be taxed at 3½ per cent. The key issue was whether car seat covers and upholstery could be classified as accessories to motor vehicles under Entry 3 of Schedule Ist of the Act.The appellant argued that not all accessories under Entry 3 should be taxed at 13%, emphasizing that accessories should aid in the effective use of the vehicle as a whole, not just as parts of the vehicle. The respondent contended that accessories need only contribute to the convenience or use of the motor vehicle, even if they are not essential for the vehicle's operation. Both parties cited various precedents to support their arguments.The court analyzed the definition of 'accessory' from dictionaries and previous judgments to determine the classification of car seat covers. It noted that accessories need not be essential but should add to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of the vehicle. The court referred to previous cases where seat covers were considered accessories to cycles and cars, emphasizing that accessories need not be indispensable for the vehicle's operation.Ultimately, the court held that car seat covers and upholstery are accessories that add to the comfort and elegance of motor vehicles. Since the appellant manufactured and sold these items as automobile parts, they were deemed exigible to sales tax at 13% under Entry 3 of Schedule Ist. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the sales tax levy on car seat covers and upholstery.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of car seat covers and upholstery as accessories to motor vehicles for sales tax purposes, emphasizing that accessories need not be essential but should enhance the convenience or elegance of the vehicle. The decision reaffirmed the applicability of sales tax at 13% on such accessories under the relevant entry of the Act.
TaxTMI 