9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 56 the Entry reads as above. In the light of the subsequent developments, the Notification has been issued. Once the uninterrupted power supply and its parts have been specifically made referable to Entry No.56, then, there was no warrant for invoking and applying the residuary entry merely because that guarantees higher revenue. The approach of the Tribunal is precisely on these lines. Once the product in question has been classified in the light of the plain and clear language of the entry, then, we do not see any question of law arising for our determination and consideration in these appeals. - Decided against assessee. - MVA Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2015, VAT Appeal No. 658 of 2013, MVA Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2015, VAT Appeal No. 529 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upted power supply to home appliances. In the garb of the Entry C-56, the dealer is trying to push an inverter as an IT related product. 4. The Tribunal has referred to the schedule entry C-56 read with the Notification entry dated 17th October, 2005. That is referred by the Tribunal extensively from paragraph 20. That entry as reproduced at paragraph 20 page 48 of the Tribunal reads as under : Sr. No. Name of Commodity Condition Exception Rate of tax Date of effect 56 IT products as may be notified by the State Government from time to time 4% 1.4.2005 to 31.4.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and trading in home UPS. They found that despite such clear entry and the Notification there was a doubt and which required clarification by the department. That is how they applied for a decision on the disputed question, but the Commissioner of Sales Tax held against them. He held that the dealers' product would fall in the residual entry and not in Entry C-56. That is how he was of the opinion that the residuary Entry E-1 making the product taxable at 12.5% VAT would be the applicable Entry and the request for prospective effect was also rejected. 7. The Tribunal found that the lengthy discussion in the Commissioner's order omits from consideration the plain language of the Entry. If the Information Technology products and whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
