2009 (3) TMI 947 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Rate of tax on wireless transmission projectors
2. Exemption on the value of stock transfer
3. Disallowance of exemption claimed on price variation
4. Short credit of tax paid

Rate of tax on wireless transmission projectors:
The assessee claimed that wireless transmission projectors should be taxed at 8% under item 55 of the KGST Act or at least under the residuary entry of item No. 177. However, the assessing officer taxed the item at 12% under item 32. The court found that the projector, manufactured by Panasonic, is specifically covered by entry 32 along with other items like cinematographic equipment and cameras. The Government Pleader argued that entry 55 excludes electronic equipment falling under specific entries. The court agreed, stating that even electronic projectors are covered by entry 32. The petitioner's reliance on entry 1.17 of Notification S.R.O. No. 1728 of 1993 was dismissed as it referred to 16mm projectors for projecting film, not computer images. The Tribunal's decision to tax the item at 12% was upheld, dismissing the revision on this issue.

Exemption on the value of stock transfer:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the assessing officer for reconsideration with reference to the stock register. The court found no legal question arising from this issue and declined to consider it further.

Disallowance of exemption claimed on price variation:
The petitioner claimed exemption on price variation, which was essentially a discount or trade margin passed on to dealers. To qualify for deduction, the discount must be granted in the invoices themselves as per rule 9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. The court noted that the deduction available is only for trade discount allowed in invoices, not credit notes given later. The challenge against the Tribunal's order was found to have no merit, and the revision on this issue was dismissed.

Short credit of tax paid:
Although the petitioner raised a question regarding short credit of tax paid, the Tribunal did not consider the claim. The court directed the assessing officer to grant credit for the entire amount of tax payment upon verification of proof provided by the petitioner. The sales tax revision case was disposed of, and the officer was instructed to rectify any mistakes on this issue if an application with proof of payment is filed within one month of receiving the judgment copy.