In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh G.S.T.R. No. 55 of 1989 Date of Decision: January 20, 2009 M/s S.B. Saini Brothers, Jalandhar …Petitioner Versus The Punjab State …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of GSTR Nos. 55 to 58 of 1989 because in all the cases common questions of law and facts are involved. These cases pertains to the same assessee-petitioner in respect of difference assessment years i.e. 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Sales Tax Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated 15.2.1989, has referred the following question of law in all the cases, for adjudication by this Court:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that ‘electric motor’ is covered by the expression ‘electric goods’ in Entry 17 of Schedule ‘A’ of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? G.S.T.R. No. 55 of 1989 The aforementioned question has already been decided by this Court in favour of the revenue in the case of Gupta Agencies v. State of Punjab, (1994) 92 STC 543, wherein reliance was placed on an earlier Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Madan Lal Pawan Kumar v. Punjab State, (1982) 49 STC 77 (P&H) holding that electric motors are not electric equipment required for generation, transmission and distribution of electric power and, therefore, they would not be covered by excepted goods mentioned in entry 17 of Schedule “A’ to the Act. Accordingly, it was held that the electric motors are liable to tax at the rate of 10% and not at the rate of 6%, as claimed by the dealer. The matter has again been considered by this Court in the case of Singla Electric Store v. State of Punjab, (1996) 102 STC 427. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, learned State counsel has also placed reliance on the aforesaid judgments. Moreover, we have already followed the aforementioned view taken by two Division Benches and answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the dealer while dealing with GSTR Nos. 66, 66-A, 67 and 68 of 1990, decided on 8.1.2009. In view of above, we follow the same view in these cases and answer the question of law in favour of the revenue and against the dealer. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 20, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2