2015 (1) TMI 62 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Nature of currency counting machine - exemption from entry tax - Whether the currency counting machine is a machine or electronic goods Held that - The assessee has classified currency counting machine as machinery under Entry 1(iii)(a) of Part M of Second Schedule to Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - in order to construe a particular goods as machinery, it is not the requirement of the law that there should be a manufacturing activity conducted with the aid of the said goods - even it is not necessary that such a machine should be operated with an electric energy or any other type of energy - even natural force or human or animal energy could be used to perform the work for which the said machine is invented - The essence of a machine is, it is a mechanical device consisting of a planned and an organized arrangement, to perform a work which otherwise a man would have performed - Such a work is done in a more convenient way and may be faster than what a human being could do - It is a case of substitution of manual work by a machine - Such work may result in a new product or may not result in a new product at all and therefore, the said finding recorded by the appellate authority is unsustainable and is contrary to the well settled legal principles over a period. If two views are possible and if the appellate authority or the assessing authority has adopted a particular view, it is not open to the Revisional Authority to substitute his reasoning and interfere with the orders - when it cannot be said that it is an electronic goods and the test prescribed by the appellate authority for coming to such conclusion is ex facie illegal, it cannot be said that two views are possible - the finding recorded by the assessing authority is erroneous - It is not the case of two views being possible - the Revisional Authority was justified in interfering with the order of the appellate authority and restoring the order of the assessing authority. Whether a revisional authority in exercise of power u/s 15(2) of the Act could interfere with the order of penalty, on the ground that the maximum penalty as prescribed under law is imposed Held that - The imposition of penalty is not automatic - this is not a case where the assessee has not filed his returns nor it was a case where returns had been filed but the turnover in respect of a particular goods was not disclosed in the returns - having regard to the dispute between the parties, the assessing authority was justified in not imposing the maximum penalty for non-disclosure of the tax - he was justified in imposing ₹ 10,000/- the Revisional Authority was not justified in interfering with the order on the ground that maximum penalty is not imposed - as the suo motu powers can be exercised by the Revisional Authority only when the order sought to be revised is prejudical to the interest of Revenue - the portion of the order of the Revisional Authority setting aside the penalty and remanding the matter to the assessing authority to re-impose the penalty is set aside the order of the assessing authority is restored in its entirety - Decided partly in favour of revisionist assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of currency counting machines as "machinery" or "electronic goods."
2. Authority of the revisional authority to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the appellate authority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Currency Counting Machines:
The primary issue was whether currency counting machines should be classified as "machinery" or "electronic goods." The assessee classified these machines as "machinery" under Entry 1(iii)(a) of Part 'M' of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax (KST) Act, 1957. The appellate authority had earlier ruled that these machines were electronic goods, referencing the judgment in M/s. Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CCT, which defined machinery as a mechanical contrivance producing output from input. However, the revisional authority disagreed, stating that currency counting machines are not electronic goods but fall under "machinery (all kinds)" as per Item No. 7 of the Schedule in the Notification dated 30-3-2002. The High Court upheld this view, explaining that machinery need not involve manufacturing activity or be operated by electric energy alone. The court cited several precedents, including the Privy Council's guidelines in Corporation of Calcutta v. Cossipore Municipality (AIR 1922 P.C. 27) and the Division Bench's ruling in State of Mysore v. M.N.V. Rao, affirming that machinery can be defined broadly as mechanical devices performing work more efficiently than manual labor. The court concluded that currency counting machines fit this definition, as they reduce human labor in counting currency, thus classifying them as "machinery" liable for entry tax.

2. Authority of Revisional Authority on Penalty:
The second issue concerned whether the revisional authority could interfere with the penalty order of the appellate authority. The assessing authority had initially proposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000 but levied only Rs. 10,000, considering the assessee's contention that it was not liable for entry tax. The revisional authority set aside this reduction, remanding the matter for re-imposition of the maximum penalty. However, the High Court found that Section 5(5) of the KTEG Act allows discretion in imposing penalties, stating that the imposition is not automatic. The court noted that the assessee had filed returns and the dispute was about the classification of goods, not non-disclosure. Therefore, the assessing authority's decision to impose a lower penalty was justified. The High Court ruled that the revisional authority's interference was unwarranted as no prejudice to revenue interests was evident. Consequently, the court set aside the revisional authority's order on penalties, restoring the assessing authority's original order.

Conclusion:
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the classification of currency counting machines as "machinery" and setting aside the revisional authority's order on penalties. The assessing authority's order was restored in its entirety, with each party bearing its own costs.