LAWS(KAR)-1979-7-8

K B DANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 20, 1979
K.B.DANI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether tractor-trailer is a machinery or necessary of a machinery for the purpose of levy of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is the question of law that arises for consideration in this sales tax appeal presented under section 24 of the Act.

(2.) The appellant is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment period commencing from 31st October, 1970, to 19th October, 1971, the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Hubli, mad an order of assessment against the assessee on 31st October, 1972. Out of his total turnover, a sum of Rs. 1,59,318 representing the sales turnover of tractor-trailers was subjected to tax at 3 per cent. under section 5(1) of the Act as they were non-scheduled goods. The assessee was satisfied with the order. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, exercising his suo motu power under section 22A of the Act, issued notice to the assessee on the ground that the order of the Commercial Tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This view was taken by the Commissioner on the ground that tractor-trailer falls under item 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act, under which 6 per cent. tax is levied for all machinery and spare parts and accessories thereof. The assessee resisted the notice and contended that tractor-trailer was neither machinery nor a part or accessory of a machinery. The Commissioner, however, overruled the contention of the assessee and passed an order holding that tractor-trailer falls within the definition of the word "machinery" or "accessory" under item 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act and, consequently, he brought the sales turnover of tractor-trailers to tax at 6 per cent. for the relevant period. Aggrieved by he said order, the appellant-assessee has presented this appeal under section 24 of the Act.

(3.) Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that tractor-trailer is not "machinery" and cannot also be considered as "accessory of machinery", i.e., tractor.