Point of Law : Question of manufacture is not relevant for the purposes of the 2003 Act.

ORDER :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

All these three revision petitions are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts arise.

2. Revision petitioner is a registered dealer under Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short 'H.P. VAT Act') and is manufacturer of product fabric whitening “Ujala Supreme” (for short ‘product’). The Assessing Officer under H.P. VAT Act applied the rate of tax @ 13.5% on the premise that the product did not fall in any of the categories specified in Schedule-A to H.P. VAT Act and hence was liable for incidence of tax in accordance with Part-III of Schedule-A (supra) in residuary category.

3. On two occasions i.e. on 29.12.2012 and 01.02.2013, the Assessing Officer raised demands of Rs. 1,06,250/- and Rs.11,090/- respectively, from the petitioner, on account of less payment of VAT after checking the consignment of the product at Barrier. Another demand of Rs. 15,29,300/- was raised by the Assessing Officer on 31.01.2013 from the petitioner on account of less tax paid for the year 2007-2008.

4. Petitioner assailed the aforesaid assessment by way of separate appeals under Section 45 of H.P. VAT Act, before Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority (South Zone), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-09 (for short 'Appellate Authority'). The details of the appeals before the Appellate Authority are as under :-

All these appeals were decided by the Appellate Authority by a common order dated 24.07.2013 against the petitioner. The assessment made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. However, the Appellate Authority absolved the petitioner from payment of penalty as assessed by the Assessing Officer.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner challenged the same by filing three separate appeals No. 73/2013, 74/2013 and 75/2013 before the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal, Dharamshala, camp at Shimla (for short "Tribunal") under Section 45(C) of the H.P. VAT, Act). The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioner vide common order dated 17.09.2014, and therefore, the petitioner is in Revision before this Court.

6. The matter in issue between the petitioner and respondent is with respect to the rate of VAT payable on the product. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the product is covered under Entry 54 (113) of Schedule-A, Part-II-A of H.P. VAT Act, 2005, and thus, is liable to pay tax @ 5%, the respondent denies the factum of coverage of product under aforesaid Entry and maintains it to be falling in Schedule-A, Part- III of H.P. VAT Act, under residuary category.

7. On the basis of the material on record, the following question of law has arisen in common in all the three revision petitions, for consideration of this Court in exercise of its revisional power under Section 48 of the H.P. VAT, Act:-

“Whether 'Ujala Supreme' is classifiable under Entry No. No.54 (113) of Schedule-A, Part II-A of H.P. VAT Act, 2005 as ‘synthetic organic colouring matter’ ”.

8. We have heard Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

9. It is not in dispute between the parties that the product “Ujala Supreme” is taxable under Section 6 (1)(a) of H.P. VAT Act. The dispute is with respect to the rate of tax payable by the petitioner on the product. Respondent claims VAT @13.5%, whereas the petitioner admits VAT to be payable at the rate of 5%. As per petitioner, the product is covered as “Synthetic organic colouring matter” specified at serial No.113 of notification issued by respondent detailing “Industrial input and packing material” as per