2014 (12) TMI 836 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rate of VAT on cell phone battery charger - Charger is sold as composite package along with cell phone - High Court observed that said charger cannot be excluded from the Entry for concessional rate of tax which applies to cell phones and parts thereof - Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (PVAT) - Held that - It cannot be held that charger is an integral part of the mobile phone making it a composite good. - Merely, making a composite package of cell phone charger will not make it composite good for the purpose of interpretation of the provisions. The word accessory as defined in the Webster s Comprehensive Dictionary (International) Volume-I. Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the mobile/cell phone charger is an accessory to cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone. We further hold that the battery charger cannot be held to be a composite part of the cell phone but is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell phone. The High Court failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and wrongly held that the battery charger is a part of the cell phone. - Decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether cell phone battery charger is sold as a composite package along with cell phone.
2. Applicability of tax rates on cell phone accessories.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions regarding taxation.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the High Court's orders allowing the respondent-assessee's appeals, stating that the cell phone battery charger is sold as a composite package along with the cell phone, hence not excluded from the concessional tax rate applicable to cell phones. The respondent argued that the charger is an integral part of the cell phone, sold together without separate charges. However, the State contended that the charger is an accessory, not part of the cell phone, as evidenced by separate tax payments on chargers sold independently.

2. The Assessing Authority initially held that the battery charger is a separate item taxable at 12.5%, not the concessional rate for cell phones. The respondent challenged this decision, leading to appeals at various levels. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the charger is not part of the cell phone. The High Court, however, ruled in favor of the respondent, considering the charger as part of the composite package. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the charger is an accessory, not a composite part of the cell phone, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

3. The legal interpretation focused on Schedule 'B' of the Act, which lists goods taxable at 4%. The respondent argued that the charger is an essential part of the cell phone, while the State contended that chargers are not covered under the relevant entry. Additionally, reference was made to the Central Excise Duty Act's codes to support the classification of chargers as accessories. The Court analyzed the definition of 'accessory' and previous case law to conclude that the charger is an independent product, not a composite part of the cell phone.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the cell phone battery charger is an accessory, not a composite part of the cell phone, and therefore taxable at the general rate applicable to accessories.