9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of Rs. 1,93,05,198/- from it. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner - Samsung (India) Electronics Pvt. Limited is manufacturer and seller of consumer electronics, IT and telecom products in the Indian market. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, Punjab VAT Act"). It is engaged inter alia in selling of mobile phones and accessories. In case of sale of mobile phones, the petitioner alongwith the mobile phones also packages and supplies mobile chargers, batteries, earphones, data cables, etc. in one single package, so as to make it one composite box put up for retail sale. The mobile phone bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, it was liable to be taxed as per the residuary entry of the Punjab VAT Act. Accordingly, tax demand of Rs. 1,93,05,198/- was fastened on the petitioner. Hence the instant writ petition. 4. Reply by way of short affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Shri Shalinder Singh, Designated Officer cum Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana II. It has been inter alia stated therein that the issue has already been settled by the Apex Court in Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case (supra). Further, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 62 of the Punjab VAT Act before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals); under Section 63 of the Act before the Tribunal and under Section 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hedule at Sr.No.6(g) under Entry 60 thereof and is liable to be charged at the rate of 4%. The said entry does not cover 'accessories' for the purpose of taxing the item at 4% and rather the same are required to be charged at the rate of 12.5% in accordance with Schedule F. The Apex Court while dealing with those very entries categorically held in Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case (supra) that accessories of mobile phone were not covered under Schedule B. The provisions of Section 29(4) of the Punjab VAT Act Act alongwith proviso and explanations had been introduced w.e.f 15.11.2013 whereby for any assessment to be made under section 29(2) of the Punjab VAT Act, the period of limitation has been prescribed six years after the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derstood as an accessory. It has also been noticed by the Tribunal that a Nokia make battery charger is compatible to many models of Nokia mobile phones and also many models of Nokia make battery chargers which are compatible to a particular model of Nokia mobile phone, imparting various levels of effectiveness and convenience to the users. Xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 19. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find that the 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 separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
