http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MEHRA BROS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JOINT COMMERCIAL OFFICER, MADRAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1990

BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1017            1990 SCR  Supl. (3)  61  1991 SCC  (1) 514        JT 1990 (4)   750  1990 SCALE  (2)1063

ACT:     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  Vehi- cles.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant is a registered dealer under  Tamil  Nadu General  Sales  Tax Act 1 of 1959. 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 to be chargeable to  Sales tax at 3/2 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  ac- cordingly.  This was upheld on appeal by the Assistant  Com- missioner 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 automobiles. Since such of those accessories which would be convenient for use, for  the use of the motor vehicles as a whole for an  effec- tive  use of the vehicles and not as a part of such  vehicle are  exigible  to  tax at 13%. Reliance was  placed  on  the following judgments.     Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka, [1983] 54 STC 308; Commissioner,  Sales  tax, U.P. v. Free India  Cycle  Indus- tries,  [1970]  26  STC 428 and Shadi  Cycle  Industries  v. Commissioner of Salestax, U.P., [1971] 27 STC 56.     The respondent contended that the accessories for  motor vehicles  must be those that aid or an addition for  conven- ience  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. Meerakasim Carnatic Seat Company, [1973] 32

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

STC 463; S.M. Brothers v. 62 Deputy   Commissioner   of   Commercial   Taxes,   Hyderabad Division-I,  Hyderabad  & Ors., [1977] 39 STC  182  and  The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayesh (India) Agencies, [1984] 57 STC. 128.     Our  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 be whether the  article or articles in question would be an adjunct or an accompani- ment  or addition for the convenient use of another part  of the  vehicle or adds to the beauty, elegance or comfort  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  be 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 be conclusive. [66G]     3.  Another test may be whether a particular article  or articles  or parts, can he 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 fail outside the ambit of the accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to be the  intention of the legislature. [67B]     5.  The appellants in the instant case  manufacture  car seat covers, upholstery for sale as a automobile part in  he regular course of business. Therefore, they are exigible  to Sales  tax  at 13% under entry 3 of Schedule 1st  read  with section 3(3) of the Act. [67E]

JUDGMENT: