1978 (12) TMI 166 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and interpretation of the term "machinery" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Classification of screen print block tables for tax purposes.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition and Interpretation of "Machinery"
The primary issue in this case is the interpretation of the term "machinery" as it appears in Entry 15 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The term "machinery" is not defined in the Act, necessitating reliance on dictionary meanings and judicial interpretations. According to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, "machinery" involves a combination of parts working harmoniously to achieve a desired end. The court emphasized that machinery must consist of several objects interacting in unison, prompted by manual or mechanical force, to produce a specific result.

Issue 2: Classification of Screen Print Block Tables
The applicant, a dealer manufacturing screen print block tables, contended that these tables should be classified under Entry 15 of Schedule C as machinery used in the manufacture of goods, including spare parts and accessories. The Sales Tax Officer, however, classified the tables under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E, a decision upheld by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the printing process was manual and not aided by machinery, thus rejecting the applicant's claim.

The court, however, disagreed with the Tribunal's narrow interpretation. It noted that the tables were fitted with steam pipes for instantaneous drying and that color mixing was done mechanically. The court held that the tables, steam pipes, screen prints, and rolls collectively constituted machinery. Consequently, the tables should be considered accessories of the machinery.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of "machinery" and its classification of the screen print block tables. The reference was accepted, and the question was answered in the negative, in favor of the applicant-assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the applicant-assessee.

Reference answered in the negative.