BIJILI AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two points that arise for consideration in these two cases are : (1) Whether the transactions carried on by the petitioners would amount to sale of batteries attracting liability to sales tax and (2) what is the rate of tax to be charged on the transactions, if they are treated as taxable sales " THE petitioners have supplied batteries to varies customers and their contention was that they merely reconditioned the batteries of their customers by replacing the worn-out parts like plates, separators, etc., and recharged them for use and that such reconditioning of the said batteries and supplying of the same to their customers in a working condition amounts to a works contract and, as such, the transactions are not liable to be taxed as sales. With reference to the petitioners' contention that the merely reconditioned the old batteries supplied by the customers, the assessing authority found as a fact that there was no proof to show that the customers gave the worn-out batteries to the petitioners for reconditioning and that no records, like order book, etc., have been maintained by them in this behalf. THE assessing authority also found that having regard to the value of Rs. 100 to Rs. 150 charged for the batteries supplied by the petitioners it is not probable that the old batteries of the customers would have been reconditioned, that the petitioners themselves should have purchased the old batteries and after reconditioning them, sold the same to the various customers as a finished product for a specified price ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 150 and that, therefore, they are liable to be taxed as regular sales effected by the petitioners.

(2.) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner also agreed with the view of the assessing authority.On a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, it also found that the petitioners have not shown to have reconditioned the batteries supplied by the customers and that the facts clearly indicted that the petitioners were purchasing old batteries and other parts like plates, separators, etc., and after rebuilding such batteries, sold them as finished products to various customers. ON the said factual finding that the old batteries were not supplied by the customers, the Tribunal was of the view various customers amounted to sale of batteries and, therefore, they have rightly been taxed. Before us the learned counsel questions the findings of the authorities below that the old batteries have not been shown to have been supplied by the customers. But we are of the view that all the authorities below have concurrently found that the petitioners have not produced any material to show that the old batteries were supplied by the customers. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the case put forward by the petitioners that they merely reconditioned the batteries belonging to the customers and, therefore, they wee merely works contracts. On the facts found by the authorities below, we are of the view that no other conclusion is possible. If the petitioners have purchased old batteries and sold them as reconditioned to the customers, it will definitely amount to sale of goods. We are of opinion that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion on this aspect of the case.

(3.) THE tax cases are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 in each case.