SUPREME MOTORS MANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises an important and interesting question as to whether "car seat covers" could be considered as accessories of motor vehicles within the scope of Entry No. 73 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('Act' called shortly). Entry No. 73 : 'Articles used generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles-13 percent. Note :-Reduced to 12 per cent by Act 7/81. Counsel for the petitioner states that the car seat covers are accessories only of a part of the car viz., the seats and they, therefore, cannot be, termed as accessories of motor vehicles.

(2.) The contention demands a close analysis but before we dissect that Entry, it is necessary to state the facts of the case. They are as follows.

(3.) The Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act. For the year ending March 31, 1975, the petitioner filed a return with taxable turnover of Rs. 2,50,469/-relating to the sale of car seat covers. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes before whom the return was filed, assessed that part of the turnover at 3-1/2 per cent under S. 5(1) of the Act on the ground that the seat covers are just accompaniments to the seats and they cannot be regarded as accessories of motor cars. If it is held to be an accessory of motor cars, then there is no dispute that the turnover ought to have been taxed at 13 per cent. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore Dvn. in exercise of his suo motu revisional power under S. 21 of the Act, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the turnover relating to the car seat covers should not be brought to tax at 13 per cent. In response to the said notice, the petitioner contended that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his letter No. MSR. 516/73- 74 dt. March 13, 1974, had clarified that the sale of car seat covers were liable to be taxed at 3-1/2 per cent multipoint under S. 5(1) of the Act plus additional tax at 2 per cent payable under S. 6B and therefore it is not open to the Department to tax at a higher rate. It was also contended that the car seat covers cannot fall within Entry No. 73. The Deputy Commissioner, however, did not accept that submission and he directed the Assistant Commissioner to tax the disputed turnover at the prescribed rate under Entry No. 73. Against the said order, the petitioner appealed to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also agreed with the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the Appeal. The Tribunal has stated that the seat covers are fitted for convenience and beauty of the motor car and therefore they are accessories of motor vehicles.