9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - CWP No.11165 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 2-11-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. advocate with Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate and Mr. A.R.Madhav Rao, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl.A.G.Punjab. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. CM No.12627 of 2015 1. Rejoinder is taken on record. CM stands disposed of. CWP No.11165 of 2015 2. The petitioner prays fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No.2 and filed its reply. In Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case (supra), it was held by the Apex Court vide order dated 17.12.2014 that mobile phone charger was an accessory to the mobile phone and it was not a part of the mobile phone. The battery charger was separate item and was distinguishable from mobile phones and therefore, it was liable to be taxed as per the residuary entry of the Punjab VAT Act. Respondent No.2 issued letter dated 8.1.2015 to the petitioner to appear before it on 15.1.2015 alongwith certain documents. The petitioner submitted written submissions. Vide order dated 4.5.2015, Annexure P.8, respondent No.2 relying on judgment of the Apex Court in Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case (supra) concluded that the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count books, balance sheet etc. In the meantime, the Apex Court in Nokia India Pvt. Limited's case (supra) decided identical issue vide order dated 17.12.2014. The assessment proceedings in the case of the petitioner were again taken up by issuing notice to it. On examination of the papers, it was found that sale of 7,81,008 mobile phones to the value of ₹ 269,21,55,517.92 had been made. The petitioner claimed that the mobile phone chargers and other accessories sold by it were not to be charged separately on a separate rate of tax as was applicable under the Punjab VAT Act. The explanation on being found to be not satisfactory, the assessment was framed. It has been further stated that Schedule B of Punjab VAT Act contains the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case (supra) wherein it has been held as under:- 16. The Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the battery charger is not a part of the mobile/cell phone. If the charger was a part of cell phone, then cell phone could not have been operated without using the battery charger. But in reality, it is not required at the time of operation. Further, the battery in the cell phone can be charged directly from the other means also like laptop without employing the battery charger, implying thereby, that it is nothing but an accessory to the mobile phone. The Tribunal noticed that as per the information available on the website of Nokia, the Company has invariably put the mobile battery charger in the categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
