AMBICA WOOD WORKS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting point arises in this reference made at the instance of the assessee under section 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as to what should be the correct meaning of the term "machinery", its spare parts and accessories. The point arises in the following facts and circumstances : The applicant herein is a dealer manufacturing screen print block tables of wood which are sold to the various textile mills. In the course of the assessment period corresponding to S. Y. 2023, the Sales Tax Officer had levied tax on the sales of these tables under residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant that the goods in question were covered by entry 15 of Schedule C to the said Act pertaining to machinery used in the manufacture of the goods, spare parts and accessories thereof other than the specified machinery in any of the schedules to the said Act.

(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of assessment, the applicant went in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, but with no avail. The applicant, therefore, carried the matter in further appeal before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal. On behalf of the applicant, the whole process of hand screen printing was explained orally at the time of hearing of the appeal as well as the time when the Tribunal went for inspection in one of the city mills for the purposes of understanding the process in question. It was pointed out to the Tribunal that the wooden tables supplied by the applicant were of 42 metres in length and 60 inches in width (that is, about 146 ft. x 5 ft. ). The tables were covered with buff-leather after they were fixed on the site so that there would be an even printing on the cloth. The tables are brought in loose condition and assembled on the site by the suppliers. In the present case, the buff-leather was fixed on the tables by the applicant under a separate labour contract. The steam pipes are fitted below the tables so as to supply the necessary heat for the purposes of drying the prints instantaneously. The Tribunal also found that there was a machine for mixing colours mechanically so as to obtain the necessary consistency of colours. The cloth is spread on the tables, and with the help of screen print frames by moving hand-rolls, necessary designs are imprinted and there is an instantaneous drying of the printing on the cloth. It is in the back-ground of this process that a question was posed before the Tribunal as to whether these tables can be said to be spare parts or accessories of the machinery for printing. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact during the inspection that the printing was done manually and not with the aid of any machinery.

(3.) THE Tribunal considered the various decisions of different High Courts and also its own and it was held that the tables supplied, though can form part of screen print block tables, but since by themselves they cannot form part of printing machinery as such, the claim of the assessee could not be accepted. THE Tribunal was of the view that the tables in question could be said to be parts of screen print tables. In that view of the matter, therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the orders of the authorities below. At the instance of the assessee, therefore, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that screen print block tables sold by the applicant are not covered by entry 15 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?"