TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (1) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot apply to the present case makes the following "electrical instruments" as subjects of single point levy: "41-A. All electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule), but including electrical fans, lighting bulbs, torches, fluorescent tubes and their fittings including chokes and starters and parts and accessories of all such electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances." The question in the present case however is whether monobloc pumpsets are to be regarded as "electrical goods". The Tribunal's order in this very assessee's case for a previous assessment year gives a description of the monobloc pumpset. It is stated to be an electrically driven pumpset. The pumpset which is necessary for suction of water is attached to the electrical motor as one and single item of machinery. It is observed that the major part of the pumpset is the electrical motor. Notwithstanding this understanding of the nature of the monobloc pumpset and notwithstanding a finding in the appeal under revision that monobloc pumpset could not be run without the use of electrical energy, the Tribunal held that this type of pumpset cannot be classifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This means that we must seek to apply only the broad principles to particular cases in an attempt to find out whether the goods in question in those cases properly answer the description of electrical goods. In William Jacks and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras [1955] 6 STC 301, the learned Judges on doubt took note of the fact that the pump section attached to the electric motor so as to make it one single item of machinery could not be driven excepting by the use of electrical energy. It does not appear, however, that they regarded this characteristic as the sole or decisive factor for holding that the said item came under the heading "electrical goods", for, in a subsequent decision in which William jacks and Co. Ltd.'s case [1955] 6 STC 301 was purported to have been applied by the same learned Judges, viz., William Jack and Co. Ltd. v. State [1960] 11 STC 340, the same learned Judges observed that the mere fact that an item of machinery depended on electricity for its working would not lead to the conclusion that it would fall within the category of electrical goods. In this case, the learned judges were dealing with a lathe which was fashioned to operate with the aid of electrical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Being a single block of machinery as its name suggests, and not being capable of being operated excepting with the use of electricity as motive power, the monoblocs which have been sold by the assessee in the course of his business must necessarily fall under the item "electrical goods" coming under entry 41 of the First Schedule to the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee cited a decision or two in which monobloc pumpsets have come up for tax treatment under other enactments. Karnal Machinery Store v. Assessing Authority [1973] 31 STC 3 is a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which monobloc pumpsets figured in the discussion as to whether they should fall within the classification of electrical goods or agricultural implements, apparently under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, under which that question arose before that High Court. There was an entry, entry 17, in Schedule A to that Act dealing with monobloc pumping set and another entry, namely, entry 34 in Schedule B dealing with agricultural implements. The learned judges took note of the factual finding in that case that the turnover in question represented sales of pumping sets to agriculturists fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have stated above, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was in error in holding that monobloc pumps have got to be assessed as an item of general machinery and do not fall within the classification of electrical goods within the meaning of item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Their decision as we have earlier demonstrated is based on a thorough misunderstanding of what was decided by this Court in the first of the William Jacks and Co. Ltd.'s case [1955] 6 STC 301. We accordingly allow the State Government's revision and set aside the Tribunal's order and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The State will have its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. January 11, 1982. The order of the Court was made by BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J.-This case was once again posted to accommodate further arguments being addressed by the learned counsel for the tax-payer. He brought to our notice one other decision of this Court in Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1979] 43 STC 404 in which item 41 of the First Schedule to the Act was considered with reference to a cone winding machine fitted with electric motors. The learned Judges held that i....