STATE OF MYSORE Vs. M N VRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question that arises for our consideration in these petitions filed by the State Government of Mysore under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (which is hereinafter called the Act) is whether the "cottage basin" which is used in the silk industry for spinning and reeling silk is a "machinery" under item 20 in Schedule 2 to the Act.

(2.) The respondent is a manufacturer of an apparatus or contrivance called "cottage basin". It is used for spinning and reeling silk. The respondent was assessed to sales tax on his total turnover, treating the apparatus manufactured by him as "machinery" within the meaning of item No. 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer. The respondent appealed against the order to the Deputy Commissioner without any success. He held that "cottage basins" are not charakas but that they are "machinery' within the meaning of that terms used in serial No. 20 of the Second Schedule. It may be mentioned that item No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act charakas and their parts - are classified amongst goods exempted from tax under section 8 of the Act. The contention of the respondent has all along been that the apparatus is charaka and is therefore exempted from sales tax. This contention was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner as also by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Having rejected the contention that the apparatus was not a charaka, the Tribunal proceeded to consider whether it is a machinery within the meaning of item No. 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Tribunal referred to item 10 (fire-arms), item 14 (bicycles), item 15 (dictaphones), item 17 (sound transmitting equipment including telephones) and item 18 (typewriters) and came to the conclusion that the Legislature had maintained a distinction between machinery that generated power and machinery that did not, and that item No. 20 includes only those machines which general power. It appears that the Tribunal got the apparatus produced, and its description, according to the Chairman who delivered the judgment of the Tribunal, is -

(3.) It is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken by the Tribunal was erroneous as no distinction was made by the Legislature between machines that generate power and the machinery that does not, that "cottage basin" was machinery within the meaning of item No. 20 in the Second Schedule and that the view taken by the departmental authorities is correct.