TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery, machinery parts and spare parts and component parts and accessories thereof and tools would be exigible to tax at the first point of sale - Admittedly, the Petitioner is the first seller of the idlers to HEC. The entry in question refers not only to machineries but also component parts thereof and accessories. It also includes tools . The decision of the Allahabad High Court in COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP., LUCKNOW VERSUS OM IRON FOUNDRY, AGRA [ 1973 (11) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] was dealing with the question whether pulleys were not parts of the machinery. The High Court observed that the goods in question were ordinary pulleys connecting shafts with electrical motors or oil engines for transmission of power . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 10th March 2008 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) in S.A. No.394 of 2005-06 and S.A. No.393 of 2005-06 respectively. By the said orders, while dismissing the Petitioner s appeals, the Tribunal affirmed the orders dated 1 st February 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Sundargarh Range, Rourkela in Sales Tax Appeal Nos.AA.271 (RL-II)/2004-05 and AA.255 (RL-II)/2004-05 respectively. 2. While admitting the present revision petitions, this Court by its order dated 27th October 2009 framed the following questions separately for considerations: I. Whether equipment is same as machinery and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had furnished a declaration. However, according to the STO, the machinery and its spares were subject to tax of the first point of sale w.e.f. 1 st January 1990 and therefore, Form-XXXIV was not maintainable. The claim for deduction was therefore disallowed by the STO and the said amount of Rs.19,61,116.15/- and Rs.10,65,244/- respectively was added to the taxable turnover for levy of sales tax at 16%. 5. Further, in the course of separate assessment in both the matters, while examining the work order issued to the Petitioner by M/s. Otto India (P) Ltd., M/s. Small Tools Allied Manufacturing Co., SAIL RSP and HEC respectively, the STO noted that the Petitioner had undertaken a job of repairing and machining, which involved consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the machinery, reference is made by Mr. Sahoo to serial No.6 of the Finance Department Notification dated 22 nd December 1989 which mentions machineries including sewing machines and component parts and accessories thereof . Referring to Collin s Dictionary, Mr. Sahoo submitted that an idler is nothing but a pulley riding loosely on a shaft pressing against a belt to guide it or take up the slack: also idler pulley . He also referred to entry in serial No.114 of the notification dated 31 st March 2001 (SRO No.149/2001) to urge that equipment does not specifically find mention in the notifications under Section 8 of the OST Act for exigibility of tax at the first point of sale. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serial 6 of List-D of the Rate Chart which indicated that machinery including sewing machines and component parts and accessories thereof were, till 28th February 2002, subject to tax at the first point of sale. It is submitted that the idler is nothing but a component part of the machinery and was subject to tax in the first point of sale and therefore, Form-XXXIV could not be used. 12. The above submissions have been considered. As per the notification dated 9th January 2002 issued by the Finance Department, the entry at serial No.175 states machinery, machinery parts and spare parts and component parts and accessories thereof and tools would be exigible to tax at the first point of sale. Admittedly, the Petitioner is the first sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion twice. It is not clear whether what was sold by the HEC to NALCO was the same idler or the machinery of which the idler was a part. In the absence of clear evidence in this regard, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the same transaction is being taxed twice. Consequently, the Court does not find the decision in M/s. High-way Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) as having relevance here. 15. The Court is not persuaded that the idler sold by the Petitioner does not form part of machinery or is not an accessory. The distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Sahoo between equipment and machinery is not convincing in the context in which the question arises here. If the idler was a component part of machinery or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
