Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 999 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssues Involved: 1. Taxability of "power sprayers" under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Classification of "power sprayers" under Schedule-I or Schedule-IV of the Act. 3. Applicability of tax rates for parts and accessories of "power sprayers" under Schedule-V. Summary: Issue 1: Taxability of "power sprayers" The petitioner, M/s Jagdamba Machinery Store, argued that "power sprayers" should be classified as exempt goods under Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, during a survey, found that "power sprayers" do not fall under any entry in Schedule-I and are taxable at 4% under Schedule-IV. The parts and accessories of "power sprayers" were deemed taxable at 12.5%/14% under Schedule-V. The assessing authority rejected the petitioner's contention, leading to the imposition of differential tax and interest. Issue 2: Classification under Schedule-I or Schedule-IV The petitioner contended that "power sprayers" should be included under "sprayers including their parts and accessories" in S. No. 29 of Schedule-I. However, the Tax Board held that "power sprayers" are not specifically mentioned in Schedule-I and are therefore taxable under Schedule-IV. The court emphasized the necessity of interpreting tax statutes strictly as per the expressed words, without implying provisions not stated. Issue 3: Tax rates for parts and accessories The court examined Schedule-V, which covers goods not specified in any other schedule. Given that "power sprayers" are not explicitly included in Schedule-I, they are taxable under Schedule-IV, with parts and accessories taxable under Schedule-V at 12.5%/14%. Conclusion: The court upheld the Tax Board's decision, affirming that "power sprayers" do not fall under Schedule-I and are taxable at 4% under Schedule-IV. The parts and accessories are taxable under Schedule-V. The revision petitions were dismissed, and the orders of the assessing officer, appellate authority, and Tax Board were upheld.
|