STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PUNJAB MOTOR COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 98, 75, 74 and 44 of 1967 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge holding that under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, the spare parts of tractors do not fall under the category of luxury goods under the heading "spare parts of motor vehicles".

(2.) AS has been discussed by the learned Single Judge, the tractor cannot be categorised as a "motor vehicle" and for this, reliance was placed on two cases of the Madras High Court (State of Madras v. Marshall Sons and Company (India) Limited [1954] 5 S. T. C. 305) and William Jacks and Company Limited v. The State of Madras [1956] 7. S. T. C. 327) In the first case, it was observed as follows:an agricultural tractor, though its propulsion is by a motor, is not a vehicle within the meaning of Section, 3 (2) (i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, because it is not a thing which is employed to carry either persons or goods on land. The meaning of 'vehicle' is a conveyance or a carriage. An agricultural tractor is not used to convey anything and it is employed for agricultural operations and is driven by a driver.

(3.) IT was also noticed that the notification, which categorised "luxury goods", also showed that the tractor was treated as a separate item and only a fixed sum of Rs. 100 per tractor was to be levied as sales tax irrespective of its sale price. It was clear from this that the tractor is not luxury goods and obviously it could not be the intention of the Legislature that although tractor may not be luxury goods, its spare parts would be luxury goods.