9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 459 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of Entry tax - classification of goods - machinery, imported for use of installation of electronic exchange for providing telephone services to the public at large - U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act - HELD THAT - The issue is not res integra . This Court, on various occasions, has come to the conclusion that inter - parties have decided the issue against the applicant and in favour of the Revenue. This Court, on identical set of facts in DOOR SANCHAR MAHA PRABANDHAK VERSUS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, UP., LUCKNOW 2012 (11) TMI 1043 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held that it is clear that during the assessment year under consideration, the equipments which were imported by the revisionist-assessee, were the machinery and its part and the value of the same was more than ten lacs. So, the same is subject to entry tax. The authorities were justified in levying entry tax on the import and hence, no substantial question of law arises - revision dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Contradictory classification of electronic goods as equipment and machinery. 2. Classification of electronic equipment as machinery under U.P. Trade Tax Act for entry tax purposes. 3. Failure of authorities to appreciate questions of fact and law. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Contradictory Classification of Electronic Goods as Equipment and Machinery: The revisionist contended that the authorities had inconsistently classified electronic goods as both equipment and machinery, which was self-contradictory. The court reviewed the case and referred to previous judgments. It was noted that the term "machinery" is broad and includes electronic devices. The court cited the case of M/s Siemens Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore, where electronic equipment used for communication was classified as machinery. The court concluded that the classification of electronic goods as machinery was consistent with legal precedents and dismissed the contradiction claim. 2. Classification of Electronic Equipment as Machinery under U.P. Trade Tax Act for Entry Tax Purposes: The revisionist argued that electronic equipment should not be treated as machinery for entry tax purposes under the U.P. Trade Tax Act unless classified separately. The court referred to Item 2 of the schedule of Act, 2007, which includes "Machinery and spare parts of machinery valuing Rupees Ten lakhs or more." The court elaborated on the definition of machinery, citing various legal precedents and dictionaries. It was established that machinery includes devices that use energy to perform tasks, including electronic devices. The court held that the imported electronic equipment used for telecommunication constituted machinery and was subject to entry tax. 3. Failure of Authorities to Appreciate Questions of Fact and Law: The revisionist claimed that the taxing authority, Appellate Authority, and Tribunal failed to appreciate the questions of fact and law. The court reviewed the records and previous judgments, including the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCT, which supported the classification of electronic equipment as machinery. The court found that the authorities had correctly applied the law and facts in levying entry tax on the imported machinery. The court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the authorities to appreciate the questions of fact and law. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision, holding that the authorities were justified in levying entry tax on the imported electronic equipment classified as machinery. The questions of law raised by the revisionist were answered accordingly, affirming the consistent classification of electronic goods as machinery under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
|
