9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (5) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y notification dated the 31st August, 1966. It then read as follows: "Motor vehicles, including chassis of motor vehicles, motor tyres and tubes and spare parts of motor vehicles." The expression "accessories" was introduced "after motor tyres and tubes" but before "and spare parts of motor vehicles" with effect from 1st September, 1966, by the aforesaid notification. Since the assessment in question in this writ petition deals with the period prior to the said notification of the year 1966, we are not concerned, in this writ petition, with the question whether motor bodies would come within the expression "accessories" or not. We are, on the other hand, concerned only with the question whether motor bodies would come under the expression " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the existence of a remedy by way of revision does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226. In view of the aforesaid ruling, which appears to be the latest among those cited before me on this point, there is no need to notice the other decisions which were cited before me. It being admitted that only a revision, not an appeal, lay against the impugned order the above-said decision of the Supreme Court would directly apply to this case. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition is, therefore, overruled. The meaning of "spare part" has been given in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume II (1967 Edition), page 2183, Column, as follows: "An extra p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ody is a part of the motor vehicle and would, therefore, follow the expression "spare parts" would be to ignore "spare" which precedes "parts" and lend colour to the said expression. The impugned order (of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax) relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Pritam Singhs. What was considered in that case was the question whether the body mounted on the chassis of a motor vehicle was an integral part of the motor vehicle and could, therefore, be considered to be "component parts of motor vehicles" within the meaning of item No. 24 of the notification issued under that Act. That has clearly no application to the present case because the expression "compon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
