TMI Blog1981 (5) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Revisions) are very brief. The assessee claimed that batteries and its parts were taxable at 3% under Notification No. ST-3503 of 1956. The assessing authority did not agree. He held that batteries were taxable as electrical goods at 10%. In appeal the order was set aside. It was held that in M/s. Jupiter Battery Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1972 UPTC 224, this court held that batteries were taxable at 3%. The order was maintained in revision. Now the Commissioner claims that they are taxable at 7% being electrical equipments. 4. When revision was heard earlier reliance was placed by learned Standing Counsel on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Sharda Batteries Works, 1980 UPTC 657 and it was urged that batteries were covered in the broad entry electrical goods but as it was electrical equipment for generation and distribution of electricity it was taxable at 7%. On the other hand the learned counsel for assessee challenged the correctness of decision in Sharda Battery's case. He urged that Notification No. 3503 levying tax on batteries at 3% was still operating. The learned counsel maintained that the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sharda Electric Bat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an exception carved out of Entry 7. It was further observed 'the submission may be correct but the primary question is whether motor batteries can be held to be electrical goods'. 5. Then on the claim of assessee that motor batteries were taxable at 3% the Division Bench observed, 'the referring order however does not make any reference to this submission'. The question of law has been quoted above. The entire controversy before revision authority and this court was whether motor batteries were taxable at 3% under Notification No. ST-3503 dated 10th May, 1965 or at 7% under Notification No. 7096 dated 1.10 1965. Whereas the question of mentioning it in the order dated 26.11.1979 the entire case was referred. The power to refer a case by a learned Judge is derived from proviso (b) to sub-rule (iv) of Rule 2 of Chapter V of Rules of the Court. A Judge may if he thinks fit refer a case or. a question of law. Under Rule 6 the Chief Justice, 'may constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law.' Constitution of larger bench or the direction to list a case before a Division Bench is an order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper. It appears to have been issued in assumed superiority of power which does not exist. The 'appropriate question', which needed attention of single Judge and which was to be decided by Division Bench had already been referred by Addl. Judge Revision. 7. Then under Rules of Court what could be done by a single Judge could be done by Division Bench also. It may not be vice versa. It was open to the Division Bench to frame 'appropriate question' and answer it. But there was no occasion for, the 'opinion that the case may go back'. An opinion formed against the rules without any reason or occasion. 8. Now the question is what should be done. Is it proper to decide the revision or send it again to Division Bench. In Union of India v. Brij Nath Rai and others, 1971 ALJ 1114 it was held by a single Judge of this Court that a Judge can differ from his own view as it does not involve any conflict of opinion. The correctness of view is open to serious doubt as a judgment given by single Judge is the decision of the court and the manner of it 'overruling' cannot be different. The disagreement expressed by the Judge, on his own view only creates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that Item No. 24 of 1956 notification stood obliterated. And the latter part of the entry. 'Articles including......' could not stand in isolation. It is this view which was followed in 1980 UPTC 657. With utmost respect to the Hon'ble Judge these observations were not necessary to decide the controversy whether battery was spare part. The learned counsel for assessee appears to be justified in submitting that it is not the ratio decision but obiter dictum, therefore the question whether 1956 notification continued or it stood obliterated is still open for decision. 13. It may not be out of place to mention that in 1979 UPTC 804 and the decision given by Additional Judge Revision in this case proceeds on assumption that Notification No. 3503 of 1956 is in operation and taxability or otherwise of motor batteries depends on its construction. There appears to be misapprehension in this regard as even the question on which the Commissioner of Sales Tax sought opinion of this court refers to Notification No. 3503. This was however substituted with retrospective effect by Notification No. 3472 of 1956 quoted above. There was no substantial difference in the two n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and one cannot be understood as included in another. The entry in relation to, component parts and articles including batteries in 1956 notification therefore could not be deemed to have been obliterated by Notification No. 3578 of 1958. 14. The question then is whether battery is accessory or part or spare part of component part of vehicles. An accessory has been held to be an article which is used for convenient and smooth functioning. A battery cannot therefore be considered to be accessory. It is not spare parts as held in 1979 UPTC 804. An article is a component of another when it is essential for completing it. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pritam Singh, 22 STC 414 it was neld by a Division Bench that 'now a component part of an integral part necessary to the constitution of the whole thing. In Vikas Traders v. State of Gujarat, 37 STG 163 the Gujarat High Court following the decision of tnis court held that motor battery is component part of vehicle. In Oxford Illustrated Dictionary Volume 1 page 341 component is defined, as 'contributing to the completion of a whole' ' Rangam House Dictionary' describes component as, 'being or serving as elemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
