TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (12) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see claimed that he was liable to pay sales tax only at the rate of 3 per cent on the leather cases saying that they come under the category of "general goods". This was accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer, who assessed the sales of leather cases only as general goods at 3 per cent. The Deputy Commissioner suo motu took notice of this taxation and issued a notice to the assessee why the sales of the leather cases should not be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent treating them as "radio accessories". For giving this notice, the Deputy Commissioner was inspired by the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 159 of 1975 dated 23rd December, 1975. After taking into consideration the representation of the assessee, he revised th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. The deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other uses also. It is its general or predominant user which seems to determine the category in which the article will fall. This is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in A.C. Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1976] 37 S.T.C. 378 (S.C.). That was also the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in K.V. Narasimulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1971] 27 S.T.C. 178., and by another Division Bench of this Court in S. M. Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1977] 39 S.T.C. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal of that decision, we do not find anything therein useful to the contention of Sri Dasaratharama Reddi. As we have pointed out even at the threshold of our order, the assessee filed a return showing the sales of leather cases and claiming that he was liable to pay only at 3 per cent on these sales. This claim was accepted by the assessing officer. Consequently, there was a claim made by the assessee, which, on consideration, was accepted by the assessing officer. It is true that the assessing officer did not give reasons for such an acceptance. But the assessment order and other parts of the assessment record would show that a claim in this behalf was made by the assessee and that the same was accepted by the assessing authority. Thus, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to that sub-section, an assessment or levy under subsection (4) may be made within a period of six years if the event has occurred on account of the failure of the dealer to disclose the turnover or any of the particulars correctly. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee failed to disclose the nature of these leather cases and that was why, instead of the normal period of four years for reopening, this enlarged period of limitation of six years would apply. This is wholly unwarranted for the reason that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose. Even the assessment order would show that an amount of Rs. 38,874.33 was realised by the sale of leather cases. The Deputy Commissioner started his order of revisio....