TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (1) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the case, the tax rate at the rate of 12 per cent on bus bodies is proper?" 2.. The facts: The petitioner, M/s. R.K. Patnaik, is a registered dealer and is an automatic motor vehicle body builder. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, West Circle, while examining the books of accounts of the dealer for the assessment year 1976-77, found that the dealer had paid Rs. 42,500 as sales tax only at 6 per cent, i.e., a concessional rate, for the sale of automobile bodies built by it during the quarter ending 31st March, 1977, though according to the Schedule the sale turnover should have been taxed at 12 per cent. The case of the dealer before the assessing authority was that the bodies fitted on the chassis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favour of the petitioner, the High Courts of Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana have taken a contrary view, that is, against the petitioner. 5.. Let me first refer to the cases which may be said to be in favour of the petitioner. In the Madras case [1969] 23 STC 374 (Simpson and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras) the dealer had entered into a contract for construction of bus bodies on the chassis supplied to him and on reference to the terms of the contract entered into between the dealer and the other party (Government), the court, on appreciation *Here italicised. of the facts of the case, held that the dominant intention was one of purchase by the Government of completed bus bodies as chattels, but taken delivery thereof a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t (the full particulars of the Act being not mentioned in the report) in the relative item in Schedule I thereto and the Bombay High Court took the view in favour of the dealer for the reason that the oil-tanker had an independent use and independent existence as well. But the Bombay High Court observed that the condition which was required to be fulfilled for making an article to fall under entry 58(2) was that the article must not be capable of being ordinarily used otherwise than as component and spare parts and accessories. It further observed that "in the present case, we are not concerned with a motor body mounted on the chassis of a motor truck". In my considered opinion, the observation just excerpted above goes against the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x, U.P. v. Punjab Gramophone House). But both the cases are not of motor vehicles but of different goods, such as, electrical goods and gramophones and records. It is not necessary to advert to these cases in any detail to derive the conclusion when we have already got direct decisions of different High Courts on the point. The meaning of the word "component" as given in the Chambers Dictionary is, "forming one of the elements or parts, one of the parts or elements of which anything is made up, or into which it may be resolved". 9.. In my considered opinion, the body of a motor vehicle would clearly be a part of it and the chassis of a motor vehicle cannot by itself be said to be a vehicle. To function as a conveyance, a motor vehicle....