TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (3) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dios and transistors so as to fall under item 12 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? Are the are carbon parts or accessories required for use with cinematographic equipments so as to fall under item 14 of the said schedule? According to the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, such batteries and carbons fall respectively under items 12 and 14 of the said schedule. The assessee, however, contended before these authorities that batteries fell under item 26 of the said schedule which relates to "all electrical goods". It also contended that carbons came under the residuary provision, namely, section 5(1)(ii). These contentions were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... All electrical goods (other than those specifido. 7 cally mentioned in this schedule), instruments, per cent apparatus, appliances and all such articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy, including fans and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares and porcelain and all other accessories and component parts either sold as a whole or in parts. 2.. The Tribunal found that the batteries manufactured by the assessee could be used for various purposes; the transistors were sold without batteries; these batteries could not be recharged once they were discharged. The Tribunal, on the basis of such finding, held that the batteries could not be described as spare parts and accessories of wireless recep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termining its real nature. He contended that in the commercial sense these batteries or arc carbons could not be considered as parts or accessories of transistors or projectors as the case might be. If that was the case, they would not attract entry 12 or 14. According to him, the batteries fell under item 26 and the arc carbons under section 5(1)(ii). 5.. Two unreported decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court were placed before us by counsel for the revenue. In T.R.C. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1969, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held: "That the goods in question are required for use as accessories in cinematographic equipment is not in dispute. The mere fact that they could also be used for other purposes does not in any way take t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he question is whether they are to be considered as a part of typewriters or merely accessories. It seems to us that a part of a machine is that which contributes to making the machine a complete article. It is a part of the whole. It is a component which together with other components results in a complete article. We find it difficult to hold that in the absence of a ribbon, a typewriter is not a complete machine. It is all that a typewriter should be, and the addition of a ribbon does not make it any the more a complete machine." It was therefore held that the ribbon was not a part of the typewriter. The question whether the typewriter ribbon, if not a part, would be an accessory of the typewriter was not considered either by the Myso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, in our opinion, printing types cannot be classed as accessories to the printing machinery." The principle which can be drawn from the above decisions appears to be that a thing is a part of the other only if the other is incomplete without it. A thing is an accessory of the other only if the thing is not essential for the other but only adds to its convenience or effectiveness. Based on this principle the courts held that a typewriter ribbon was not a part of a typewriter as a typewriter was complete without the ribbon. A typewriter could function even without the ribbon when cutting stencils; but whether the ribbon could be treated as an accessory was not, as already stated, considered by the courts. In the case of printing ty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on with the arc carbons vis-a-vis the cinematographic equipments. 9.. As stated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh[1967] 19 S.T.C. 469 (S.C.)., "it is now well-settled that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense". (See also Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Kerala Premo Pipe Factory Ltd. [1974] 33 S.T.C. 305; 1974 K.L.T. 12. and Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Law) v. Chandra Corporation[1976] 37 S....