IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
M/s Shreepati Computers, Through its Branch Manager Shri Mahendra Pareek & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Anti Evasion Zone-1, Jaipur & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference Nos.17, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 156, 157, 158 of 2022, S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of 2023, 114 of 2020, 115 of 2020
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Sales Tax - Memory Cards Classification - RVAT Act, 2003 - Section 84 - Entry 10 of Part A of Schedule IV - Entry 3 of Part A of Schedule IV - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court analyzed the classification of memory cards under the RVAT Act, focusing on Entry 10 of Part A of Schedule IV and Entry 3 of Part A of Schedule IV. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the revenue to justify classification under the residual entry and the importance of specific entry overriding general entry. The court also discussed the validity of the determination order, the retrospective effect of the amendment, and the inclusive nature of Entry 10 of Part A of Schedule IV. The court highlighted the principles of quasi-judicial functions, prospective nature of notifications, and interpretation beneficial to the taxpayer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-assessee had been classifying memory cards as 'I.T Products' under Entry 10 of Part A of Schedule IV to the RVAT Act and discharging VAT liability accordingly. However, after a survey by the revenue, a determination order was passed, leading to the imposition of additional tax and interest. The petitioner-assessee challenged the classification and levy of tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the burden of proof was on the revenue to justify the change in classification and that the determination order lacked supporting evidence. The court also emphasized the importance of specific entry overriding general entry and the principles of quasi-judicial functions. The court quashed the orders of the Tax Board and the authorities below, allowing the petitioner-assessee's claims.
Issues: The issues involved the classification of memory cards under specific entries of Schedule IV to the RVAT Act, the validity of the determination order, and the retrospective effect of the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof on the revenue, the principles of specific entry overriding general entry, and the importance of supporting evidence in classification matters. The court also highlighted the principles of quasi-judicial functions and interpretation beneficial to the taxpayer.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner-assessee's claims, quashed the orders of the Tax Board and the authorities below, and disposed of pending applications.
ORDER :
1. The present Sales Tax Revisions / References (for short "STRs"), filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short "RVAT Act"), were admitted on following questions of law :
“(a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer was justified in ignoring the fact that the assessment order passed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner under Section 25 of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was passed merely on a change of opinion and there was no reason to believe that the petitioner has avoided or evaded tax or has not paid tax in accordance with law or has availed input tax credit wrongly?
(b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer was justified in ignoring/overlooking the fact that Memory Cards are IT products covered under Entry No.3 of Part A of Entry 65 of Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 which provides for levy of VAT at the rate of 5 per cent on ‘Computer system and peripherals, computer printers excluding multifunctional devices & electronic diaries’?”
In STR Nos. 114-115/2020 and in STR Nos. 1-6/2023:
“(a) Whether the ‘Memory Cards’ are not ‘Prepared unrecorded media’ as per entry no.10 of Schedule-IV of RVAT Act-2003 made available since introduction of RVAT in the State w.e.f. 1.4.2006?
(b) Whether the notification no.2016-187 dated 08.03.2016 is not clarificatory in nature of entry no.10 of Schedule-IV of RVAT Act-03?
(c) Whether the determination order of Commissioner is valid one after passing of nine (9) years?”
In STR Nos. 156-158/2023:
“(a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer was justified in holding that Memory Cards are not IT products covered under Entry No.10 of Part A of Entry 65 of Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 which provides for levy of VAT at the rate of 5 percent on “Prepared unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording of other phenomena including Compact Disc (CD) and Digital Versatile Disc (DVD)?
(b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer was justified in ignoring/overlooking the fact that alternatively Memory Cards are IT products covered under Entry No.3 of Part A of Entry 65 of Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 which provides for levy of VAT at the rate of 5 percent on ‘Computer system and peripherals, computer printers excluding multi-functional devices & electronic diaries’?”
2. Since common question of law of classification of ‘memory cards’ under the RVAT Act is involved in all these STRs, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and are now being decided by way of this common order. STR No. 17/2022 is taken as lead file to peruse the facts.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER-ASSESSEE
3. Learned counsels for the petitioner-assessee submits that the petitioner-assessee are engaged in trading of different type of IT products including the goods in question, i.e. the ‘memory cards’. The petitioner-assessee had, since beginning, been effecting sale of the goods in question and charging tax @ 5/5.5 percent by treating the goods in question to be classifiable under Entry 10 of Part A of Schedule IV to the RVAT Act, which read as “Prepared unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording of other phenomena including Compact Disc (CD) and Digital Versatile Disc (DVD)”. However, after a survey of the business premises being conducted by the respondent-revenue on 08.10.2015, Show Cause Notice (for short “SCN”) was issued to the petitioner-assessee under Section 25/26 of RVAT Act as the respondent-revenue had determined that the goods in question, i.e. the memory cards, were not covered under any of the specific entries an
Union of India vs. M/s Garware Nylons Ltd.
Voltas Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. Sharma Chemical Works
M/s Hindustan Poles Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. vs. A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd.
State of Maharashtra vs. Bradma of India Ltd.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Ors. vs. Ved Ram
Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Ors. vs. Ved Ram
Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. Oil India Limited & Ors.
Income Tax Officer, Calcutta and Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income Tax Officer
State of Kerala vs. K.E. Nainan
Eureka Forbes Limited vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Orient Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. vs. National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Mahim Patram Private Ltd. vs. Union of India
Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax and Ors.
Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
The burden of proof on the revenue to justify classification, the principles of specific entry overriding general entry, and the importance of supporting evidence in classification matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific entry overrides the general entry, and the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish the classification of goods under t....
The authority must establish both an error in the original order and that it is prejudicial to revenue for invoking revisionary powers under Section 74A of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.