D B BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for consideration which is common to these six petitions is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as right in taking the view that handlooms are machinery and that parts thereof sold in the course of business are liable to sales tax as falling within entry 20 of Schedule II of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

(2.) During the six assessment years concerned in these petitions, the petitioner had sold certain items which are prescribed as spare parts of handlooms. It is stated, however, that some of the items may not fall accurately within the description of spare parts or parts of the machinery itself, but may fall within the description of or more appropriately be described as "accessories". During the period relevant to these assessments, entry 20 of Schedule II brought under tax only spare parts but not accessories. The word "accessories" was subsequently added by an amendment. Hence the additional argument on behalf of the petitioner is that even if we should agree with the opinion of the Tribunal that handlooms may be regarded as machinery, the question still remains whether some of the items are not mere accessories and therefore outside the said entry but liable to tax only under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act.

(3.) On the question whether handlooms may be regarded as machinery, the approach to be made to the question is now clearly indicated in a decision of this Court reported in State of Mysore v. M. N. V. Rao ([1964] 15 S.T.C. 540; 1964 Kar. L.J. 101.).