@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.V. Dixit, C.J.@mdashThis reference u/s 13 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, by the Commissioner of Sales Tax relates to. the
assessment of sales tax during the assessment year 1953-54 on the assessee Messrs R. R. Contractor & Co., Indore. The three questions which
the Commissioner has formulated and referred to this Court for decision are :-
(1) Whether washer is an article for the purpose of item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act.
(2) Whether leather belts are articles for the purpose of item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act.
(3) Since kerosene is exempted from Madhya Bharat Sales Tax, and since kerosene is purchased in tins and sold in tins whether these tins are
exempted from sales tax.
2. The taxing authorities have taken the view that the sales tax payable by the assessee on leather washers and belts sold would be according to
item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3 issued u/s 5 of the Act. According to this schedule, the sales tax payable on sales of leather goods of all kinds is
Rs. 6-4-0 ad valorem per cent. The assessee contended that as washers and leather belts sold by it were parts of machinery, the sales tax leviable
was under item No. 16 of Schedule No. 4 issued u/s 5 of the Act, The rate of sales tax payable in respect of sales of machinery, component parts
of machinery and spare parts is Rs. 3-2-0 ad valorem per cent. On this contention, the Commissioner asks us to say whether washers and leather
belts are leather articles for the purpose of item No. 32 of Schedule No. 3. The real point raised by the first two questions referred to for decision
by the Commissioner is not merely whether washers and leather belts which are admittedly of leather are or are not leather goods. It is whether
these articles are component parts of machinery. The assessee made no attempt to show that the nature of these articles was such that they could
not but be regarded as component parts or spare parts of any machinery. The question whether washers and leather belts are or are not spare
parts or component parts of machinery has to be decided having regard to the meaning of the word ""machinery"" and of the words ""spare parts
and ""component parts"" and to the nature and type of the articles. The Privy Council pointed out in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the
Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality AIR 1922 P.C. 27 that there was a great danger in attempting to give a definition of the word ""machinery
which would be applicable in all cases. Their Lordships, however, added that if they ""were obliged to run the hazard of the attempt they would be
inclined to say that 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."" The
assessee should have produced the necessary material before the taxing authorities to show that having regard to this general definition of
machinery"" and to the type and nature of the washers and leather belts sold they could not but be regarded as spare or component parts of
machinery. In the absence of any such material, it is not possible for us to answer the first two questions referred to us and we decline to do so.
3. The answer to the third question is to be found in the decision in Messrs Govindram Ramprasad v. The Assessing Authority (Sales Tax) [1957]
M.P.C. 286, where also a similar question was raised.
4. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs.