9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 239 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRate of VAT on cell phone battery charger - Charger is sold as composite package along with cell phone - Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (PVAT) - Held that - issue has already been decided against the petitioner by the Apex Court in Nokia India Pvt. Limited s case (2014 (12) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT) - petitioner was unable to distinguish the judgment passed by the Apex Court. Further, the issue with regard to the vires of Section 29(4) of the Act stands concluded against the petitioner by judgment of this court dated 7.8.2015 rendered in M/s Amrit Banaspati Company Limited s case (2015 (8) TMI 742 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT). Mobile/cell phone charger is an accessory to cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone. No ground for interference is made out with the impugned order. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge to tax demand raised by the respondent. 2. Interpretation of the Punjab VAT Act regarding taxation of mobile phone accessories. 3. Availability of statutory remedies for appeal under the Punjab VAT Act. 4. Validity of assessment order under Section 29(2) of the Punjab VAT Act. 5. Application of Schedule B and Schedule F of the Punjab VAT Act. 6. Interpretation of Section 29(4) of the Punjab VAT Act. 7. Precedent set by the Apex Court in Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case. 8. Judicial interpretation of mobile phone chargers as accessories. Issue 1: Challenge to Tax Demand: The petitioner sought to quash the tax demand raised by the respondent, amounting to Rs. 1,93,05,198, based on the interpretation of the Punjab VAT Act concerning the taxation of mobile phone accessories. Issue 2: Interpretation of Punjab VAT Act: The controversy revolved around whether mobile phone accessories, such as chargers, batteries, and data cables, sold along with mobile phones constitute a composite package for retail sale under the Punjab VAT Act. The respondent contended that accessories are taxable separately under the residuary entry of the Act. Issue 3: Statutory Remedies: The respondent argued that the petitioner had statutory remedies available for appeal under Sections 62, 63, and 68 of the Punjab VAT Act before different authorities, emphasizing the need to exhaust these remedies before invoking the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Issue 4: Validity of Assessment Order: The assessment order under Section 29(2) of the Punjab VAT Act was challenged by the petitioner, highlighting discrepancies in the returns filed and the subsequent tax demand imposed, which the respondent defended as being within the statutory limitation period. Issue 5: Application of Schedules B and F: The interpretation of Schedule B and Schedule F of the Punjab VAT Act was crucial in determining the correct tax rate applicable to mobile phone accessories, with the respondent asserting that accessories should be taxed at 12.5% under Schedule F rather than 4% under Schedule B. Issue 6: Interpretation of Section 29(4): The respondent argued for the retrospective application of Section 29(4) of the Punjab VAT Act, setting a six-year limitation period for assessments, citing a previous judgment upholding the validity of the amended provision. Issue 7: Precedent from Apex Court: The judgment referred to the decision in Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case by the Apex Court, which clarified that mobile phone chargers are accessories and not integral parts of mobile phones, affirming the taxability of chargers separately. Issue 8: Judicial Interpretation of Chargers: The court concurred with the Apex Court's interpretation that mobile phone chargers are accessories and not essential components of mobile phones, thereby upholding the taxability of chargers as standalone products distinct from mobile phones. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference with the impugned order, as the issues raised had been conclusively addressed by the Apex Court's precedent and existing provisions of the Punjab VAT Act.
|
