S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. This appeal by the appellant-dealer challenges the order passed on 26th September, 2017 by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the MSTT”) in Value Added Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2012.

2. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, whereas the respondents before us are the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Sales Tax who is also exercising the powers under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the MVAT Act”).

3. The appeal raises the following substantial questions of law:-

“(a) Whether multi function printers are classifiable under Entry 84.71 of the Notification No. VAT-1505/CR-116/Taxation-1 dated 1st April, 2005 (issued under Entry C-56 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002) as “input units” or “output units”?

(b) Whether multi function printers are classifiable under Entry 84.71 of the Notification No. VAT-1505/CR-116/Taxation-1 dated 1st April, 2005 (issued under Entry C-56 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002) as “automatic data processing machine” or units thereof or as other units of automatic data processing machine?

(c) Whether multi function printers are classifiable under Entry 84.71 of the Notification No. VAT-1505/CR-116/Taxation-1 dated 1st April, 2005 (issued under Entry C-56 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002) as “laser jet printers?

(e) Whether the parts, spares, drums etc. of Multi function printers are classifiable under Entry 84.73 of the Notification No. VAT-1505/CR-116/Taxation-1 dated 1st April, 2005 (issued under Entry C-56 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002)?”

4. At the outset, the appellant proposes six questions as substantial questions of law, but Mr. Sridharan learned senior counsel appearing in support of this appeal states, on instructions, that the appellant is not pressing the questions proposed as (d) and (f) at page 8 of the paper book.

5. Hence, the appeal is admitted on the above reproduced substantial questions of law.

6. In the light of the limited issue involved, calling of records and proceedings and the filing of paper book is dispensed with. By consent of both sides, this appeal is disposed of finally.

7. The appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the business of importing and selling the electronic and Information Technology (IT) products such as printers, computers, projectors etc. It is a registered dealer under the MVAT Act. With an intention of obtaining clarity with regard to the rates of tax applicable to the goods sold by the appellant in Maharashtra, it made an application dated 14th July, 2005 under section 56 of the MVAT Act for determination of the disputed question (DDQ). This DDQ application was preferred before the second respondent. Exhibit 'B' is a copy of this DDQ application.

8. The appellant forwarded details of some transactions and particularly those on which an opinion of the Commissioner was sought by it. These transactions are as follows:-

i. rate of tax applicable on the sale and leasing of Multi-Function Printers;

ii. rate of tax applicable on the sale of Spares, Drums, Toners, Developers of the said Multi-Function Printers;

iii. Inclusion of the refundable security deposit in the value upon which sales tax is payable on the leasing of Multi-Functions Printers.

9. The appellant also forwarded copies of the invoice dated 11th July, 2005 pertaining to the sale of multi-functional printers and another invoice of the same date pertaining to sale of parts, accessories, drums etc. of these multi-functional printers. A copy of the agreement dated 11th July, 2005 pertaining to sale of multi-functional printers was also relied upon.

10. On these materials, the second respondent passed an order on 12th December, 2011 holding that the rate of tax applicable on the sale/lease of the multi-functional printers would