Holding

Car seat covers are accessories as defined under the Act and are therefore taxable at the 13% single point rate.

Summary

Mehra Bros., a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, manufactured and sold automobile seat covers and claimed they should be taxed at the lower rate of 3.5%. The assessing authority, invoking Section 3(3) and Item 3 of Schedule I, levied tax at the higher single point rate of 13%, treating the seat covers as accessories to motor vehicles. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "accessory" and formulated a test: an article is an accessory if it is an adjunct, accompaniment, or addition that enhances convenience, beauty, elegance or comfort, or is supplementary to a primary part, irrespective of its necessity for the vehicle as a whole. The Court rejected the Karnataka High Court's stricter test that required an accessory to contribute to the vehicle's overall effectiveness. Applying the correct test, the Court held that car seat covers are indeed accessories and therefore fall within Item 3 of Schedule I, making them liable to tax at 13%. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether car seat covers qualify as "articles adapted generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles" under Item 3 of Schedule I of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
What is the appropriate test to determine if an article is an accessory for sales‑tax purposes.
Whether the test requiring an accessory to add to the convenience or effectiveness of the vehicle as a whole, as adopted by the Karnataka High Court, is applicable.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959s. 3(3)

Subjects

sales taxaccessory definitionTamil Nadu General Sales Tax Actcar seat coverstaxabilitySchedule Isingle point ratevehicle accessories

Judgment

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 c
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 3f2 per cent. The D
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.
E
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
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 ofSales 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
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taus, Hyderabad Division-],
A
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.
B
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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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]
G
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 Kumar for the
A
Appellant.

V. Krishnamurthy and Mrs. S. Gopalkrishan (N.P.) for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

K. RAMASWAMY, J. These appeals under Article 136 arise

• against separate. judgments dated October 15, 1974 and March 31,
1975 in Writ Petition Nos. 2106 of 1973 and 716 of 1974 respectively by
a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ peti-
tions. The appellant is a registered dealer under Tamilnadu General C
Sales Tax Act I of 1959 (for short the Act'). The appeals relate to the
assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The appellant bas been carry-
ing on business in the manufacture and sale of Auto seat covers, uphol·
stery materials etc., in leather, plastics cloth and other materials. For
the year 1971-72 his total turnover was Rs.3,67 ,898.21 and the taxable
turnover was Rs.2,61,812.74. Similarly for the year 1972-73 his total D
turnover was Rs.2,92,588.74 and taxable turnover at Rs.1,31,650.05.
he claimed car seat covers manufactured and supplied by him to the
customers to be chargeable to sales tax at 3 1/i per cent. The assessing
authorities levied sales tax under section 3(3) read with Item 3 of
Schedule lst of the Act at 13 per cent and taxed accordingly. This was
upheld on appeal; by the Asst!. Commissioner, on a further revision E
by the Appellate Tribunal and also by the High Court in the writ
petitions. Assailing the legality thereof these appeals have been filed.
Item 3 of Schedule Ist reads thus:

"Motor Vehicles, Motor Cars, Motor Taxi Cars ... all arti-
cles (excluding batteries) adapted to use generally as parts F
and accessories of motor vehicles ...

The contention of the appellant ably argued by Shri R.P. Bhat, its
learned counsel, is that car seat covers and upholstery cannot be con-
sidered to be accessories to automobiles. The levy of the tax at 13 per
cent at single point rate is, therefore, illegal. According to the learned G
counsel it is not each and every accessory that falls under entry 3 as it
stood in the Schedule Ist of the Act is taxable at 13%. Such of those
accessOries which would be cqpvenient for use in the motor vehicle as a
whole for an effective use of the vehicle and not as a part of such
> vehicle are exigible to tax at. 13%. Jn support thereof he placed strong
reliance on Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka, [1983] 54 STC. 308; H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Commissioner, Sales tax, U. P. v. Free India Cycle Industries, [ 1970] 26
A STC 428 and Shadi Cycle Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,
U.P., [1971] 27 STC 56. Shri Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appear-
ing for the respondent contended that the accessories for motor vehi-
cle 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
B one or all the parts of the motor car even without effectiveness to the
use of the entire motor vehicle. He also cited in support of his conten-
tion Khetty Traders v. Siate of Madras, [1973] 32 STC. 346; State of
Madras v. E.A.N. Meerakasim Carnatic Seat Company, [1973] 32
STC 463; S.M. Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Hyderabad Division-I, Hyderabad & Ors., [1977] 39 STC 182
I
C and The Commissioner of Sales Tax. v. Jayesh (India) Agencies, [1984]
57 STC 128.

The question, therefore, is whether car seat covers are articles
adapted generally as parts and accessories of the motor vehicle. In
Webster Comprehensive Dictionary International Vol. 1 the word
D ·accessory' has been defined as a thing that aids subordinately; an
adjunct' appurtenance; accompaniment such items of apparel as comp-
lete an outfit, (2) aiding the principle design, or assisting subordinately
the chief agent and (3) Contributory; supplemental; additional. This
definition was approved by this Court in Annapurna Carbon Industries
Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1976] 37 STC. 378 at 381 while
E examining the question whether "arc carbon" is an 'accessory' to
cinema projectors or other cinematographic eqipment under item 4 of
!st Schedule to Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and laid
the rule thus:

We find that the accessories used in the schedule to describe
F goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addi-
tion. A sense in which the word accessory is used is given in Webster
New International Dictionary as an object or device that is not essen-
tial in itself but that adds to the beauty, convenience or effectiveness of r
something else. Other meanings given there are: supplementary or
secondary to some thing of greater or primary importance. Any of
G several mechanical devices that asists in operating or controlling the
tone resources of an order. The accessories are not necessarily con-
fined to a particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The
same item may be accessory of more than one kind of instrument.
Thus this Court accepted the meaning of the accessories as an object or
device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty or
H convenience or effectiveness of something else or is supplementary or
MEHRA BROS. v. COMMERCIAL OFFICER [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 65

secondary to something of greater or primary importance which assist
A
in operation or controlling or may serve as aid are accessories. The ·arc
carbon' was held to be an accessory.

In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at p. 13 'accessory' has
been defined as "anything which is joined to another thing as an orna-
ment, or to render it more perfect, or which accompanies it, or is B
connected with it as an incident, or as subordinate to it, or which
belongs to or with it, adjunct or accompaniment, A thing of subordiate
importance. Aiding or contributing in secondary way of assisting in or
contributing to as a subordinate".

In State of Madras v. E.A.N. Meerakasim Camatic Seat Com-
pany case (supra), the question therein was whether the cycle seat c
cover is an accessory to cycle exigible to tax under entry 38 of Schedule
Ist of the Act. It was held that the question whether the seat cover is an
accessory or no\ cannot be decided with reference to the necessity or
otherwise for such a cover for the effective use of the cycle. Seat cover
is definitely an accessory or an accompaniment to the cycle seat. The 0
assessee therein was a manufacturer of seat covers and offered them
for sale just like other commodities he was dealing in. The fact
whether the assessee deals in cycle or cycle parts will not decide the
issue as to whether the seat covers sold by the assessee are accessories
to the cycle. Accordingly it was held that seat covers are accessories to
the cycle. In Khetty Traders v. State of Madras, (supra), the .Division E
Bench held, though there is no elaborate discussion, that the seat
cover of the car is certainly an accompaniment to the seat of the car but
unessential for the running of the car. Once the canvass cloth has 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 Ist of the Act. In S.M. Brothers v. Dy. Commis- F
sioner of Commercial Taxes, case (supra), 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 predominent or ordinary G
purpose as aid. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to
other user also. It is its general or predominent user which determines
the category in which an article will fall. It.was, therefore, held that the
car seat covers will also be accessories. The Commissioner of Sales Tax
v. Jayesh (India) Agencies case (supra), the Bombay High Court also
came to consider the same question whether car seat covers are acces- H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

sories to the motor car. It was held that the article adapted for use in
A
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 use thereof would certainly contribute to the
beautification of the motor vehicle in which they are used. Car Seat
B covers would add to the pessangers' comfort in the motor vehicles.
Accordingly it was held that car seat covers must be regarded as acces-
sories to the motor vehicles as contemplated in clause (2) of entry 58 of
the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
'
In Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka case (supra), the
Karnataka High Court has taken different view. It held that the car
...'
c 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
D laid emphasis thus:

"Every part is useful to the car for its effective operation
likewise should be the aid of the accessories in order to fall
within the said entry. The accessory to a part which has no
convenience or effectiveness to be entire car as such cannot
E 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 effec-
tiveness in the use of the car as a whole is not a correct test. In our view
F 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 a supple-
mentary or secondary to the main or primary importance. Whether an '
article or part is an accessory cannot be decided with reference to its
G necessity to its effective use of the vehicle as a whole. General adapta-
bility 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 gener-
ally adapted. But when they are fitted to the vehicle, undoubtedly it
•'

I

would add comfort or enjoyment in the use of the vehicle. Another
H test may be whether a particular article or articles or parts, can be said
-
MEHRA BROS. v. COMMERCIAL OFFICER [K. RAMASWAMY, J.) 67

to be available for sale in an automobile market or shops or places of
A
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 B
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
I
accessories to the motor car. That would not appear to be the intention
of the legislature. Similarly in Free India Cycle Industries and Shadi
Cycle Industries cases (supra), the Allahabad High Court held that
cycle covers, Rexine Saddle Cover whether part or accessory of vehi-
c
cle underitem 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 Kamataka High
Court to be not accessories. We express that the Allahabad High
Court also has not laid down the test correctly. D

Thus considered we hold that car seat covers or upholstery are
accessories as an addition; an adjunct; an accompaniment for comfort-
able 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. There- E
fore, they are exigible to sales tax at 13 per cent under entry 3 of !tie
Schedule Ist read with Section 3(3) of the Act. Therefore, we do not
find any ground warranting interference. The appeals are accordingly
dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

S.B. Appeals dismissed.