MAGNA TEK ENTERPRISES Vs. SALES TAX INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioner in both the cases is engaged in the manufacture of medical equipments at Hyderabad. The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 notices produced in both O.Ps. demanding entry tax in respect of surgical table treating the same as furniture, an item in respect of which entry tax is payable under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act. The item involved in O.P. No. 3880/2002 is Olympus 2000 Mobile C - Arm Multi Procedure Table with accessories costing Rs. 3,10,000/- and the item involved in O.P. No. 3687/2002 is described as Table for the Department of Orthopaedics and Urology costing Rs. 2,50,000/-. The items were detained at Sales Tax Check Post, Walayar while on transport to hospitals in Kerala. The petitioner contends that the items in both the cases do not constitute furniture in the ordinary sense of the term, but are medical equipments or hospital equipments used only for the purpose of surgery. The leaflet describing the item and its detailed description are contained in Ext. P3 produced along with O.P. The Olympus 2000 Mobile C - Arm Multi Procedures Table referred in O.P. 3780/2002 is power operated and remote controlled. Its essential features are the following:

(2.) The position in O.P. 3687/2002 is also not very different. The item is one and the same but with additional accessories which are orthopaedic attachments and urology attachments which are referred to in page 14 of the O.P. Therefore, essentially both the equipments are one and the same. The item in O.P. 3687/2002 has the following additional accessories for orthopaedic and uro purposes:

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that these are high value medical equipments which are used only by hospitals for the purpose of surgery. According to counsel, the essential purpose is not that of furniture, but that of the facilities provided thereto. It is held by the Allahabad High Court in Imperial Surgico Industries, Lucknow v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (23 STC 201) that the term furniture is not to be given any artificial or technical definition, but should be given a meaning which is known to the trader as well as the consumer dealing with the item. That was also a case where the Allahabad High Court held hat hospital equipments cannot be classified as furniture. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on two decisions in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Associated Dental and Medical Supply Company (37 STC 337) and in State of Gujarat v. Lax Tools Manufacturers (46 STC 115) wherein the High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat have held that dental chair cannot be treated as an item of furniture.