2026 (9) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....VAT Act. The present revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2017 on the following question of law- "Whether under the fact and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as first appellate authority were legally justified in holding that Multi Valve CNG, LPG Gas Kit, Cylinder and Container are not motor parts and are liable to be tax in the general entry of LPG Cylinder Container although the goods have been manufacture to be used in motor part and are being sold from the dealer who are dealing in sale of accessories of motor part?" 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the respondent is a dealer engaged in the trading of multi-valve gas kits, containers and cylinders. During....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mentioned above, are used in motor vehicles. However, the Tribunal and the first appellate authority have wrongly relied upon the classification of the said items under the entry relating to LPG cylinders and containers, losing sight of the fact that the items sold by the respondent-dealer were exclusively used in motor vehicles. Once the aforesaid fact is not in dispute, i.e., that the items are used in motor vehicles, the authorities were not justified in taking a contrary view. 9. In the case of Mehra Bros. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Having given our anxious consideration, with respect, we are of the considered view that the test laid down by the Karnataka High Court that the accessories as a p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vehicle. If the test that each accessory must add to the convenience or effectiveness of the use of the car as a whole is given acceptance many a part in the motor car by this process would fall outside the ambit of accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to be the intention of the legislature. Similarly in Free India Cycle Industries and Shadi Cycle Industries cases (supra), the Allahabad High Court held that cycle covers, Rexine Saddle Cover whether part or accessory of vehicle under item 34 of the notification dated April 5, 1961 issued by the State of U.P. under Sections, of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (15 of 1948) with the same reasoning, as was given by the Karnataka High Court to be not accessories. We express that the Allahab....