TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (9) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond Schedule to the Act, as was found in the Act right from the inception, as inserted by Act 25 of 1957, read as follows: "14. Bicycles, tandem cycles and cycle combinations." This entry was substituted by Act 31 of 1958, and the substituted entry read as follows: "Bicycles, tandem cycles (cycle combinations and parts and accessories and tyres and tubes thereof)." By Act 9 of 1970, perambulators, children's tricycles and similar articles were also included in the said entry. By Act 14 of 1980 item 14 of the Second Schedule was omitted and the entire entry was shifted to Fifth Schedule and inserted as entry 44 under which is enumerated, the goods exempted from tax under section 8. By Act 14 of 1987 item 44 in the Fifth Schedule was omitted and item 14 was reintroduced and the said entry continued thereafter without undergoing any change. The petitioners' case is that cycle locks were being treated as "accessories" to cycles right from 1958 when the parts and accessories of cycles were inserted in entry 14 by Act 31 of 1958, which was the earliest enactment relating to cycle locks in the Sales Tax Act. The argument that is advanced on the basis of this factu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decided cases relied upon by both sides. It is the argument of Sri B.P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that cycle locks can never be classified along with "all kinds of padlocks and locks" and they have to be understood and treated as accessories to cycles only and taxed under entry 14 of the Second Schedule even after the insertion of entry 150. It is also argued that cycle locks have all along been taxed as accessories to cycles and the insertion of entry 150 with effect from 18th November, 1983, for the first time, should not make any difference so far as the cycle locks are concerned having regard to the incontrovertible fact that the department itself treated the cycle locks as accessories of cycles. The other argument which is advanced, with some emphasis, is based on the ratio decidendi contained in several decisions on this point. It is argued by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that cycle locks are properly brought to tax under entry 150 after the said entry was introduced, for the first time, with effect from 18th November, 1983 and the cycle locks satisfy the description of the goods in entry 150, "all kinds of padlocks and locks"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaning of "accessories" of motor vehicles. Their Lordships held that the predominant or ordinary use, for which the article is put, should be the guiding factor. Their Lordships followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1976] 37 STC 378. Sri Gandhi strongly relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 (SC). The question that arose in the said decision was, whether glass mirrors and glass screens fitted in motor vehicles fall under tariff item 23A(4) or tariff item 34A or tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Act. Tariff item 23 related to glass and glassware. By tariff item 23A(4), "other glass and glasswares" was substituted. Tariff item 34A deals with motor vehicles parts related to parts and accessories not elsewhere specified. Tariff item 68 is the residuary item. Their Lordships were answering the question whether the glass mirrors and glass screens were taxable as parts and accessories of motor vehicles or as glass or glasswares. It was held, item 34A was a special entry, and item 23A(4) is a gen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereof. (iii) K.B. Dani v. State of Karnataka [1979] 44 STC 276 (Kar). Held, a tractor-trailer is neither a "machinery" nor a part or an "accessory" of a machinery and, therefore, not taxable under item No. 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Tractor-trailer required for use of a tractor cannot be an accessory to a tractor. The Supreme Court, in Atul Glass Industries' case [1986] 63 STC 322, laid down the test, which is commonly applied in cases where controversy as to classification and levy arises, thus: "How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product? That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does not contain any definition. It is generally by its functional character that a product is so identified." The Supreme Court held, that glass mirrors cannot be classified "as other glass and glassware" under tariff item 23A(4) and falls under residuary item 68. In the light of the above discussion, and the interpretation that is called for, the factors that need to be considered are these: (i) the consistent view taken by the department for over 25 years in taxing the cycle locks ....