DY COMMISSIONER LAW Vs. C K INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Palakkad in T.A. No. 241191 dt. 30.1 1.1998 allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and directing the assessing authority to amend the assessment for the year 1985-86 treating 'Cage Wheel' as an agricultural implement coming under Entry 4 of the I Schedule of the Kerala Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') as against the contention of the State that 'Cage Wheel' is a spare part or component of the tractor coming under Entry 138 of the Act as it then stood.

(2.) In the original assessment for the year 1985-86 sale of 'cage wheels' was subjected to tax at the rate of 6% treating it as all agricultural implement coming Entry 4 of the 1st schedule of the Act. Subsequently, the assessing authority found that 'cage wheel' is a part of tractor liable to be assessed at the rate of 10% under Entry 138 of the I schedule of the Act. The assessment was revised accordingly, levying tax at the rate of 10% for the sale of cage wheel. On appeal the Appellate Asst. Commissioner confirmed the order of the assessing authority and found that cage wheel is a part of tractor. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee moved the Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The bone of contention between the parties is whether 'cage wheel' is an agricultural implement coming under Entry 4 of Ist schedule of the Act or an accessory or component of a tractor coming under Entry 138 of the Ist Schedule of the Act. According to the assessee, 'cage wheel' is an agricultural implement and that it is not a spare part of tractor and hence 'cage wheel' is not liable to be assessed at the rate of 10%. On a plain reading of Entries 4 and 138 of 1st schedule of the Act we find that the contention of the assessee is well founded. Entries 4 and 138 are extracted below: