Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of Orissa Vs. Rama Engineering and Manufacturing Works

State of Orissa vs Rama Engineering and Manufacturing Works

Type Court Judgment Court Orissa Decided Nov 06, 1975
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/530276

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Orissa High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.J.C. Nos. 52 to 54 of 1974.
Subject
Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 [63/1951]. Section 29; [P.K. Tripathy, A.K. Parichha & N.Prusty, JJ] Discharge of loan Orissa Forest Act (14 of 1972), Section 56 Confiscation of vehicle - Held, The Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the ...

Key legal issue
Sales Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Orissa

Advocate Standing Counsel (S.T.)

Respondent

Rama Engineering and Manufacturing Works

Advocate None

Legal References

Cases Referred
Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman
Reported In
[1976]37STC182(Orissa)

Excerpt

.....all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the orissa state financial corporation. agreement between the orissa state financial corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the contract act, 1872 read with the provisions in the act, 1951 and its rules. on the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. thus, by virtue of the provision in section 56 read with section 64 (2) of the act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by orissa state financial corporation. by doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the orissa state financial corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. in other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951. section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and..........a case and referred the following two questions for the opinion of the court on an application made by the state of orissa under section 24(1) of the orissa sales tax act, 1947 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the 'act'):(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this tribunal is right in holding that tractor parts and electric motors are not machinery and are exigible to tax at 5 per cent ?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was not justified in assessing tax on the turnover of sale of tractor parts and electric motors at 7 per cent ?2. the assessee---a dealer under the act--is a manufacturer of grills and different steel fabricated goods. the relevant periods of assessment are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. the assessee had paid tax on its sales turnover of tractor parts and electric motors at 5 per cent. the sales tax officer was of the view that sale of these items was liable to tax at 7 per cent having been covered by notified items in the notification of 30th december, 1957, issued under the first proviso to section 5(1) of the act.the appellate authority sustained the additional demand. before the tribunal in second appeal, the assessee reiterated the same contention. the additional tribunal held:.the appellant is right in contending that tax is payable at 5 per cent on the sale of tractor parts, electric motors and grills and not at 7 per cent as they were not machinery....no further reasons were given by the second appellate authority for acceptance of the assessee's contention.3. reliance is placed by the learned standing counsel on two entries in the notification dated 30th december, 1957, made in exercise of the powers under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the act. item 34 prescribes that electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances including fans and lighting bulbs would be taxed at seven per cent. similarly, entry 60 provides that all.....

Full Judgment

R.N. Misra, J.

1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated a case and referred the following two questions for the opinion of the court on an application made by the State of Orissa under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the 'Act'):

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is right in holding that tractor parts and electric motors are not machinery and are exigible to tax at 5 per cent ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was not justified in assessing tax on the turnover of sale of tractor parts and electric motors at 7 per cent ?

2. The assessee---a dealer under the Act--is a manufacturer of grills and different steel fabricated goods. The relevant periods of assessment are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee had paid tax on its sales turnover of tractor parts and electric motors at 5 per cent. The Sales Tax Officer was of the view that sale of these items was liable to tax at 7 per cent having been covered by notified items in the notification of 30th December, 1957, issued under the first proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act.

The appellate authority sustained the additional demand. Before the Tribunal in second appeal, the assessee reiterated the same contention. The Additional Tribunal held:.The appellant is right in contending that tax is payable at 5 per cent on the sale of tractor parts, electric motors and grills and not at 7 per cent as they were not machinery....

No further reasons were given by the second appellate authority for acceptance of the assessee's contention.

3. Reliance is placed by the learned standing counsel on two entries in the notification dated 30th December, 1957, made in exercise of the powers under the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Item 34 prescribes that electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances including fans and lighting bulbs would be taxed at seven per cent. Similarly, entry 60 provides that all machinery and spare parts and accessories thereto shall be taxed at seven per cent. 'Electric motors' undoubtedly come under entry 34 and, therefore, there can be no doubt that sale of electric motors was liable to be taxed at seven per cent.

'Machinery' has not been defined under the Act. The Judicial Committee in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman, Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (1922) I.L.R. 49 Cal. 190 observed:.the word 'machinery' when used in ordinary language, prima facie, means some mechanical contrivances which, by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances, by the combined movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result....

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 I.T.R. 165 (S.C.) the Supreme Court indicated that 'machinery' is a word of common parlance and not a technical word. Therefore, the common parlance meaning should be accepted. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raju and Mannar [1966] 60 I.T.R. 246 (S.C) the Supreme Court held that a diesel engine was 'machinery'.

A tractor would certainly be a 'machinery' in view of what has been stated above and tractor parts would be spare parts of machinery and, therefore, would come within the purview of entry 60.

4. Our answer to the first question, therefore, is:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was not right in holding that tractor parts and electric motors were exigible to tax at 5 per cent.

Our answer to the second question is:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was justified in assessing the turnover of sale of tractor parts and electric motors at 7 per cent.

The assessee went unrepresented. We would accordingly direct parties to bear their own costs of the references.

Panda, J.

I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial