9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Punjab and others –versus- Nokia India Private Limited [2014 (12) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the Mobile Battery Chargers (MBC), cannot be treated as part of the Mobile Phones itself and they are mere accessories of the Mobile Phone and are to be taxed separately irrespective of their packing in the common package with Mobile phones - The said binding precedent from the Apex Court is binding on all Courts/authorities in the Country. It is not based only on particular entry for tax rate under any particular State. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this contention of the assessee. The other issues of assessment have already been left open to be raised before the appellate authorities under the Act, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the recent past on 10/11/2016 in the case of M/s. LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in Writ Petition Nos.55790-801/2016 (T- RES), upholding the separate rate of tax on the Mobile Battery Chargers (MBC) sold along with the Mobile phones itself, under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, ( KVAT Act, 2003 for short), following the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Punjab and others versus- Nokia India Private Limited (2015)77 VST 427(SC). 2. This Court at paragraph 3 held as under: 3. The main question involved in the present case is also about the rate of tax applicable under the Karnataka Value Added T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 composite part of the cell phone but is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell phone. (emphasis supplied) 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to still raise a contention that the entry under the Punjab Act was different from the KVAT Act, 2003, and here since entry in question is adopted from Central Excise law, therefore, according to the Rules of interpretation under Excise Law, the Mobile Battery Chargers (MBC) sold along with the Mobile phones, in one retail package should be treated as taxable at the same rate as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
