MEHRA BROS. versus JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER, MADRAS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 14-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MEHRA BROS. 
A 
v. 
JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER, MADRAS 
NOVEMBER 14, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ] 
B 
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959: Section 3(3) and item 
no. 3 Schedule I-Car Seat Covers-Whether articles adapted generally 
as parts and accessories of motor Vehicles. 
The appellant is a registered dealer under Tamil Nadu General 
Sales Tax Act 1of1959. The appellant has been carrying on business in 
the manufacture and sale of Auto seats covers, upholstery materials etc. 
in leather, plastic cloth and other materials. The taxable turnover for 
the year 1971-72 was Rs.2,61,812.74 and for 1972-73 it was 
Rs.1,31,650.05. The claimed car seat cover manufactured & supplied by 
him to the customers lo be chargeable to Sales tax at 3 f2 per cent. The 
assessing authorities levied sales Tax under section 3(3) read with Item 
3 of Schedule 1st of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act at 13% and 
taxed accordingly. This was upheld on appeal by the Assistant Commis-
sioner and on further revision by the Appellate Tribunal and also by the 
High Court. The legality thereof questioned in these appeals. 
The appellant contended that car seat covers upholstery cannot be 
considered to be accessories to automoblies. Since such of those acces-
sories which would be convenient for use, for the use of the motor 
vehicles as a whole !'or an effective use of the vehicles and not as a part 
of such vehicle are exigible to tax at 13%. Reliance was placed on the 
c 
D 
E 
following judgments. 
F 
Supreme Motors v. State of Kamatak.a, [1983] 54 STC 308; Commis-
sioner, Sales tax, U.P. v. Free India Cycle Industries, [1970] 26 STC 428 and 
Shadi Cycle Industries v. Commissioner of Sales tax, U.P., (1971] 27 STC 56. 
The respondent contended that the accessories for motor vehicles 
G 
must be those that aid or an addition for convenience or use of the 
motor vehicle and they may also be supplementary or secondary to any 
one or all the parts of the motor car even without effectiveness the use of 
the entire motor vehicle, and reliance was placed on Khetty Traders v. 
State of Madras, (1973] 32 STC 346; State of Madras v. E.A.N. Meera-
-
kasim Carnatic Seat Company, [1973] 32 STC 463; S.M. Brothers v. 
H 
61 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taus, Hyderabad Division-], 
Hyderabad & Ors., [1977] 39 STC 182 and The Commissioner of Safes 
Tax v. Jayesh (India) Agencies, [1984] 57 STC. 128. 
On the question: Whether car seat covers and articles adapted 
generally as parts and accessories of the motor vehicle. 
While dismissing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The correct test would he whether the article or articles 
in question would he an adjunct or an accompaniment or addition for 
the convenient use of another part of the vehicle or adds to the beauty, 
elegance or confort for the use of the motor vehicle or a supplementary 
or secondary to the main or primary importance. (66F] 
2. Whether an article or part is an accessory cannot he decided 
with reference to its necessity to its effective use of the vehicle as a 
whole. General adaptability may be relevant but may not by itself he 
conclusive. [66G] 
3. Another test may be whether a particular article or articles or 
parts, can be said to be available for sale in an automobile market or 
shops or places of manufacture; if the dealer says it to be available 
certainly such an article or part would be manufactured or kept for sale 
only as an accessory for the use in the motor vehicle. (66H-67A] 
4. If the test that each accessory must add to the convenience or 
effectiveness of the use of the car as a whole is given acceptance many a 
part in the motor car by this process would fall outside the ambit of the 
accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to he the intention 
of the legislature. [ 678] 
S. The appellants in the instant case manufacture car seat covers, 
upholstery for sale as a automobile part in he regular course of busi-
ness. Therefore, they are exigible to Sales tax at 13% under entry 3 of 
Schednle 1st read with section 3(3) of the Act. (67E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
1367-68 of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 15.10.1974 and 
31.3.1975 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2106 of 1973 
..._ 
H 
and 716of 1974respectively. 
• 
MEHRA )lROS. v. COMMERCIAL OFFICER [K. RAMASWAMY, J.I 
63 
K.N. Bhat, H. Raghavendra Rao and Vineet Kuma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.