TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion whether they were 'accessories of bicycles'. Undisputedly, there is no schedule entry of 'accessories of bicycles' or of 'accessories', under the Act. It was also not the argument of the assessee that the parts dealt with by it were 'accessories' and therefore liable to tax as bicycle parts. In absence of such taxing entry and considering the case set up by the assessee, the issue to be decided by the Tribunal was whether the commodities were cycle parts - If not, only then an issue would arise if the commodity was taxable as 'accessories' or as any other scheduled commodity or as an unscheduled commodity. To that extent the Tribunal has erred in reasoning that the commodity is accessory and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w dated 4.7.2011, in Appeal No. 14 of 2011 for A.Y. 2010-2011. The appeal before the Tribunal arose against an order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow, under Section 59 of The U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) whereby the Commissioner of Commercial Tax declared the commodities namely, Bicycle Chain Cover, Bell, Cycle Stand, Handle Grip Cover and Cycle Seat Cover, accessories and not parts of bicycle. Therefore, the same have held taxable as unclassified items, at the rate of 13.5% under Schedule-V of the Act. The application (under Section 59) negated the claim made by M/s Raj Products (hereinafter referred to as the 'other dealer'), that the aforesaid commodities were bicycle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in covers and springs. Reference is also made to an exemption certificate granted by the District Level Committee under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - to the 'other dealer' describing him as a manufacturer of bicycle parts namely carrier, stand, chain cover and springs. Then, reference is also made to a certificate issued under Section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - to the 'other dealer' entitling it to purchase, at concessional rate of tax, bicycle parts. 6. By way of the second limb of that submission, reference has been made to a public notice issued by the D.I.O.S. Jhansi inviting tender to purchase 600 ladies cycles of 20 wheel size and other make specification complete with seat, full stand, qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Ruchi Dubey to establish that the purchasers / users of the bicycles considered the aforesaid commodities to be bicycle parts. 10. As to the principle to be applied, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that there is no hard and fast rule to establish when a particular commodity may be considered a part or an accessory of another item. It would always depend on the individual facts of each case. Therefore, the rule of common parlance is a principle to be applied in the individual/peculiar facts and evidence before the Tribunal. 11. In the present case, against the aforesaid evidence brought by the assessee, the department did not offer any rebuttal, yet the Tribunal has overlooked the submissions advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kores India Limited 1977 U.P.T.C.-46 wherein the Supreme Court had reasoned that the ribbon used in typewriter was only an accessory and not a part thereof, though it was admitted in that case that no output may arise with the use of a typewriter without a ribbon. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears though the Tribunal has taken note of the material and evidence relied upon by the assessee. Yet, it misdirected itself in approach in as much as without first deciding whether the commodities in question were parts of bicycles it considered the question whether they were 'accessories of bicycles'. Undisputedly, there is no schedule entry of 'accessories of bicycles' or of ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied the ratio in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Kores India Limited (supra) to reach the conclusion that the commodities in question were not bicycle parts. In these matters, it is always the peculiar facts and the evidence that is brought before a quasi- judicial authority or Court, in each case, that must be considered and the opinion should be formed not by simply applying the reasoning in another set of facts but by way of inference drawn on the peculiar facts and evidence of each case. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no direct precedent of cycle parts. Therefore a careful independent exercise had to be carried out by the Tribunal in the first place and the evidence of the case examined in the context of the operating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
