AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 200 wordsR.L. Gulati, J.—The question referred to us for opinion in this case is:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ''hand-pump'' was covered by Notification No. ST-7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965?
In other words, the short question is whether "hand-pump" is "machinery" within the meaning of the aforesaid notification. This court has, in a large number of cases, held that mechanical contrivance where energy is transmitted from one point to another is machinery. In Basant Industries, Agra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1975 U.P.T.C. 88. "water-pump" was held to fall in the category of "machinery". In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Ramesh Pd. Batuk Pd., Varanasi 1974 U.P.T.C. 535 sewai-ki-machine has been held to be "machine". Similarly, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Chandok Traders 1973 U.P.T.C. 484 "hair clipper" was held to be a machine. In view of these decisions it is clear that "hand-pump" which is used for lifting water falls in the category of "machinery".
We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 100.