TRAUB INDIA PRIVATE LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which falls for determination in this reference is whether a lathe which can be operated only with the help of electric energy is electrical goods. This question has arisen for determination because the applicants, who are the manufacturers of automatic lathes, sold one Traub Single Spindle Automatic Lathe, Model A 25, to Messrs. Perfect Machine Tools Company on or about 30th July, 1966, and in respect of this sale submitted their invoice No. 66/0046 dated 30th July, 1966. Thereafter on 8th August, 1966, the applicants made an application to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52(1)(e) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to determine what tax was payable in respect of the said transaction of sale. According to the applicants, the sale of this lathe fell under the residuary entry, namely, entry No. 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. By his order dated 28th November, 1966, the Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the printed literature supplied by the applicants showed that the lathe sold by them could not be operated except with the use of electric energy and that the lathe was electrical goods and fell under entry 20 of Schedule C to the said Act. During the relevant period the description of goods set out in the said entry 20 of Schedule C was as follows : "Electrical goods, other than those specified in any other entry in this schedule or in any other schedule."

(2.) It is common ground that there is no other entry either in Schedule C or in any other schedule under which the lathe sold by the applicants would fall, except that if it did not fall under the said entry 20 it would fall under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act. In arriving at his decision the Commissioner of Sales Tax relied upon a decision of the Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 67 to 69 of 1965 - Voltas Limited v. State of Maharashtra decided on 31st December, 1965 - in which case, purporting to follows the test, which, according to the Tribunal, was laid down in William Jacks and Co. Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras [[1955] 6 S.T.C. 301], the Tribunal held that the machinery, which could be operated only with the help of electric energy would be electrical goods. Against this order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax the applicants went in appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Sales Tax Tribunal again applied the same test which it had applied in the appeal of Voltas Limited, and following the said decision dismissed the applicants' appeal. It is against this decision of the Tribunal that this reference under section 61(1) of the said Act has been made to us at the instance of the applicants, and the following question referred to us, namely :

(3.) In William Jacks and Co. Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras [[1955] 6 S.T.C. 301], the Madras High Court held that it was neither possible nor desirable for the court to embark on a preparation of an exhaustive list of what constituted "electrical goods" within the meaning of that expression used in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. It further held that it was not even possible to devise a formula of universal application. In that case the court also cited with approval the following observation of the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras :