Page 153 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : ATRIWAL AMUSEMENT PARK 87
12. In the circumstances, we set aside the orders of the Revisional
Authority, Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority and
remit the matter to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration of
the matter.
(7.5) Further, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engi-
neering House Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon certain following foreign
decisions while dealing with the explanation ‘Plant’ and gave it a
wide meaning under the provisions of Income Tax law in the fol-
lowing manner :
“The classic definition of ‘plant’ was given by Lindley, L.J. in Yar-
mouth v. France, [1887] 19 Q.B.D. 647, a case in which it was decided
that a cart-horse was plant within the meaning of section 1(1) of
Employers Liability Act, 1880. The relevant passage occurring at
page 658 of the Report runs thus :-
“There is no definition of plant in the Act : but, in its ordinary
sense, it includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for
carrying on his business, - not his stock-in-trade which he buys or
makes for sale; but all goods and chattels, fixed or movable, live
or dead, which he keeps for permanent employment in his
business.”
In other words, plant would include any article or object fixed or
movable, live or dead, used by businessman for carrying on his
business and it is not necessarily confined to an apparatus which is
used for mechanical operations or processes or is employed in me-
chanical or industrial business. In order to qualify as plant the arti-
cle must have some degree of durability, as for instance, in Hinton v.
Maden & Ireland Ltd., 39 I.T.R. 357, knives and lasts having an aver-
age life of three years used in manufacturing shoes were held to be
plant. In C.I.T., Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, 82 I.T.R. 44, the re-
spondent, which ran a hotel, installed sanitary and pipeline fittings
in one of its branches in respect whereof it claimed development re-
bate and the question was whether the sanitary and pipeline fittings
installed fell within the definition of plant given in Sec. 10(5) of the 1922
Act which was similar to the definition given in Sec. 43(3) of the
1961 Act and this Court after approving the definition of plant given
by Lindley L.J. in Yarmouth v. France as expounded in Jarrold v. John
Good and Sons Limited, 1962 40 T.C. 681 C.A., held that sanitary and
pipeline fittings fell within the definition of plant.
In Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Barly Curie & Co. Ltd. 76 I.T.R. 62,
the House of Lords held that a dry dock, since it fulfilled the function of a
plant, must be held to be a plant. Lord Reid considered the part which
a dry dock played in the assessee company’s operations and ob-
served :
“It seems to me that every part of this dry dock plays an essential
part....The whole of the dock is, I think, the means by which, or
plant with which, the operation is performed.”
Lord Guest indicated a functional test in these words :
“In order to decide whether a particular subject is an ‘apparatus’ it
seems obvious that an enquiry has to be made as to what operation
GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  169