Case: Mehra Bros Vs. Joint Commercial Officer, Madras

been converted into seat covers, it becomes an auto-part or accessory. Accordingly it was held that it would be exigible to sales tax under Entry 3 of Schedule I of the Act. In S.M. Brothers v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes case ( 1977 (39) STC 182 (AP)) the question therein also was whether car seat covers are accessories to the car and exigible to tax. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that accessories are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. The deciding factor is that predominant or ordinary purpose as aid. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other user also. It is its general or predominant user which determines the category in which an article will fall. It was, therefore, held that the car seat covers will also be accessories. In CST v. Jayesh (India) Agencies case ( 1973 (32) STC 346 (Mad)) the Bombay High Court also came to consider the same question whether car seat covers are accessories to the motor car. It was held that the article adapted for use in motor vehicles as they have been made for the purpose of being used in motor vehicles and according to the measurement of the customers vehicles, motor car seat covers as well as other items for the use in motor car and the user thereof would certainly contribute to the beautification of the motor vehicle in which they are used. Car seat covers would add to the passengers comfort in the motor vehicles. Accordingly it was held that car seat covers must be regarded as accessories to the motor vehicles as contemplated in Clause (2) of Entry 58 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 5. In Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka case ( 1983 (54) STC 308 (Kant)) the Karnataka High Court has taken different view. It held that the car seat covers, at best could make the seat more comfortable, but do not serve as aids to the vehicle as a whole, and therefore, they must fall outside the ambit of Entry 73 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and was not exigible to sales tax at 13 per cent. Undoubtedly this ratio would help the appellant. The learned Judges laid emphasis thus: "Every part is useful to the car for its effective operation. Likewise should be the aid of the accessory in order to fall within the said entry. The accessory to a part which has no convenience or effectiveness to the entire car as such cannot, in our opinion, fall within Entry 73." * Having given our anxious consideration, with respect, we are of the considered view that the test laid down by the Karnataka High Court that the accessories as a part must contribute for convenience or effectiveness in the use of the car as a whole is not a correct test. In our view the correct test would be whether the article or articles in question would be an adjunct or an accompaniment or an 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 as a supplementary or secondary to the main or primary importance. Whether an article or part is an accessory cannot be decided with reference to its necessary to its effective use of the vehicle as a whole. General adaptability may be relevant but may not by itself be conclusive. Take for instance stereo or air-conditioner designed and manufactured for fitment in a motor car. It would not be absolutely necessary or generally adapted. But When they are fitted to the vehicle, undoubtedly it would add comfort or enjoyment in the use of the vehicle. 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. Of course, this may not also be a conclusive test but it is given only by way of illustration. Undoubtedly some of the parts like axle, steering, tyres, battery etc. are absolutely necessary accessories for the effective use of the motor vehicle. 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 accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to be the intention of the legislature. Similarly in Free India Cycle Industries ( 1970 (26) STC 428 (All)) and Shadi Cycle Industries cases ( 1971 (27) STC 56 (All)) the Allahabad High Court held that cycle covers, rexine saddle cover whether part or accessory of vehicle under Item 34 of the notification dated April 5, 1961 issued by the State of U.P. under Sections 3, 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (15 of 1948) with the same reasoning, as was given by the Karnataka High Court to be not accessories. We express that the Allahabad High Court also has not laid down the test correctly. 6. Thus considered we hold that car seat covers or upholstery are accessories as an addition; an adjunct; an accompaniment for comfortable use of the motor vehicles or for adding elegance to the seat. Admittedly the appellant manufactured car seat covers and upholstery for sale as an automobile part in the regular course of business. Therefore, they are exigible to sales tax at 13 per cent under Entry 3 of Schedule I read with Section 3(3) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting interference. 7.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Having given our anxious consideration, with respect, we are of the considered view that the test laid down by the Karnataka High Court that the accessories as a part must contribute for convenience or effectiveness in the use of the car as a whole is not a correct test. In our view the correct test would be whether the article or articles in question would be an adjunct or an accompaniment or an 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 as a supplementary or secondary to the main or primary importance. Whether an article or part is an accessory cannot be decided with reference to its necessary to its effective use of the vehicle as a whole. General adaptability may be relevant but may not by itself be conclusive. Take for instance stereo or air-conditioner designed and manufactured for fitment in a motor car. It would not be absolutely necessary or generally adapted. But When they are fitted to the vehicle, undoubtedly it would add comfort or enjoyment in the use of the vehicle. 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. Of course, this may not also be a conclusive test but it is given only by way of illustration. Undoubtedly some of the parts like axle, steering, tyres, battery etc. are absolutely necessary accessories for the effective use of the motor vehicle. 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 accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to be the intention of the legislature. Similarly in Free India Cycle Industries ( 1970 (26) STC 428 (All)) and Shadi Cycle Industries cases ( 1971 (27) STC 56 (All)) the Allahabad High Court held that cycle covers, rexine saddle cover whether part or accessory of vehicle under Item 34 of the notification dated April 5, 1961 issued by the State of U.P. under Sections 3, 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (15 of 1948) with the same reasoning, as was given by the Karnataka High Court to be not accessories. We express that the Allahabad High Court also has not laid down the testThus considered we hold that car seat covers or upholstery are accessories as an addition; an adjunct; an accompaniment for comfortable use of the motor vehicles or for adding elegance to the seat. Admittedly the appellant manufactured car seat covers and upholstery for sale as an automobile part in the regular course of business. Therefore, they are exigible to sales tax at 13 per cent under Entry 3 of Schedule I read with Section 3(3) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting interference.