STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SANJIV MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in these two cases is a dealer in slotted angles, door closers, paint brushes, etc. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79 the assessing authority held that door closers are machinery covered by entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short "the Act") and levied tax at the rate provided under that entry on the particular turnover. An appeal was filed against that order and the first appellate authority agreed with the finding of the assessing authority. When the matter was carried in second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that door closers do not answer the description of the term "machinery" dealt in entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act and hence remitted the matter to the assessing authority to levy tax on the respondent under the appropriate provision but not under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Aggrieved by his order the Revenue has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) The question that falls for our consideration is whether the door closers are machinery under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Entry 20 of the said Schedule reads as follows :

(3.) In the present cases, the respondent produced certain literature before the assessing authority in support of its contention that door closers should be treated as hardware. According to the respondent the term "door closers" was deal with and considered by a committee known as Builders Hardware Section Committee constituted under the aegis of Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi, and produced the brochure entitled "Indian Standard Specification for Door Closers (Hydraulically Regulated)" which stated that automatic door closers are being increasingly used by builders. According to the said brochure "a hydraulic door closer is an equipment for automatic closing of doors by the help of spring such that the phase of closing is slowed down by a hydraulic damper". Applying the test laid down by the Privy Council and this Court in the decisions referred to above, it is clear that the contraption or device known as door closer consists of an arrangement having certain parts containing several materials which uses hydraulic oil filling and also with the main arm securely fitted to the shaft by a square or hexagonal profile or profile of any other suitable shape with a nut and a washer. The assembly consists of not less than sixteen items of material. Thus, the function of the door closer being one to retard the closing of the door by use of a hydraulic damper, the device clearly comes within the description of "machine". We are aware of the decision of the Supreme Court which says that there should not be any technical approach nor should a commodity be understood in any technical sense but in the ordinary parlance of commercial context to class an item of goods in one category or another. In the present cases, considering the nature of the arrangement of the device and its functions it cannot be said that it is merely a door hinge and a simple device, not to be called a machine. Therefore, we cannot but reject the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. The above discussion leads to the irresistible conclusion that door closers of the type sold by the respondent are machinery for the purpose of entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act and the decision to the contrary rendered by the Tribunal will have to be set aside restoring the orders of the assessing and appellate authorities. Ordered accordingly. Revision petitions stand allowed.