COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent manufactures the bodies of motor vehicles employed as trucks and sells them. In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1956-57 the Sales Tax Officer determined the turnover of such bodies at Rs. 16,000 and, treating them as component parts of motor vehicles within the meaning of item No. 24 of Notification No. S.T.-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, issued by the State Government under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, computed the tax liability by applying the rate of one anna per rupee. The respondent preferred an appeal contending that a body mounted on the chassis of a motor vehicle was not a component part of the motor vehicle and, therefore, was not an item classified in the aforesaid notification. It should be considered, he urged, as an unclassified item liable to tax at the lower rate mentioned in section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The contention found favour with the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax and he allowed the appeal. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied in revision and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has dismissed the revision application. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Judge (Revisions) has made the instant reference to this Court for its opinion on the following question :

(2.) THE Notification No. S.T.-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, declares that the turnover in respect of the goods specified in the list appended is liable to tax with effect from 1st April, 1956, in the case of (a) goods imported from outside Uttar Pradesh, only at the point of sale by the importer and (b) in the case of goods manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, only at the point of sale by the manufacturer, and that such turnover is liable to tax at the rate of one anna per rupee. The list sets out a large number of commodities, and item No. 24 reads :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has referred us to different commodities mentioned in different notifications issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and has pointed out that the notifications refer variously to the "parts" of an article, the "spare parts" of an article and the "component parts" of an article and urges that in the context a component part must be understood as an integral part of the article. We have already pointed out that, in our opinion, the body mounted on the chassis of a motor vehicle is an integral part of the motor vehicle. Therefore, this submission on behalf of the respondent does not carry his case any further.