Point of Law: Revisionist is an Authorized Dealer of a Printer manufacturer by the name of Sharp Computer Systems, and although their Printers are multifunctional in nature their components are mainly used for the purpose of printing and their main character is that of a Printer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sunil Sharma, for the revisionist and Shri Sanjay Sarin, appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

2. This Revision has been filed against the order dated 05.07.2014 passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-III, Lucknow.

3. The facts in brief as stated by the learned counsel for the revisionist are that the revisionist is a Firm Trading in Photocopies, Printers, Cartridges, Toners and Spares and is registered in the office of the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, with TIN No.09352304188 under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Firm has been depositing tax regularly every month. The revisionist having deposited admitted tax alongwith return disclosing sale of Printer under VAT Act as a Computer peripheral admitting 4% tax deposited under Entry 22 of the Schedule which reads as:-"22 -Computer System and Peripherals Electronic Diaries for the Assessment year 2008-09.

4. The Assessing Authority by its order dated 29.02.2012 assessed the revisionists sale of Multifunctional Printers @ 12% created a dispute of Rs.7,23,387/-. The revisionist had admitted tax @ 4% but the Assessing Authority assessed the sale of Multifunctional Printer under Residuary Entry and therefore taxed it at rates meant for unclassified items under Schedule @ 12.5%.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a Printer is a specifically designed device only for printing and is admittedly a Computer peripheral. With the advancement of technology, most of such Printers also performed the functions of Scanning, E-Mailing, Faxing and Copying. However such Printers are bought mainly for the purpose of printing and are attached to Computers and they cannot perform their main function without the help of a Computer, therefore, they have to be treated as a Computer peripheral and taxed @ 4%. The Assessing Authority however, concentrated on other functions performed by Multifunctional Printer and treated it as an unclassified item.

6. The order of the Assessing Authority was challenged by filing an Appeal No.589 of 2012. The said Appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 03.07.2013.

7. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist filed a Second Appeal before the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-III, Lucknow, namely Second Appeal No.399 of 2013. During the pendency of the Appeal the Tribunal had stayed 80% of the disputed amount, the revisionist had deposited the remaining 20% before it.

8. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Commissioner in the exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Act passed an order on 05.03.2014 on an application of M/s Neoterric Infomatic Private Limited holding that the primary work of a Multifunctional Printer is that of printing which cannot be performed without the Computer. In common parlance, the Multifunctional Printer is also known as Printer and it should be taxed @ 4% under Schedule-2 Part-B Entry no.22 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. Despite such order being passed by the Commissioner and the Revisionist and other Traders being now taxed @ 4% regarding the sale of Multifunctional Printer as Computer peripheral, for the Assessment year 2008-09 with Tribunal did not extend the benefit and rejected the Second Appeal by its order dated 05.07.2014.

9. It has been argued that such judgment of the Tribunal has been passed contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2010) 14 SCC 430.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out the questions of law framed in this Revision and the order passed initially by this Court on 09.10.2014 where this Court has admitted the Revision on Question No.2 as framed in the Memo of the Revision. Since after dismissal of the Second Appeal the revisionist had already deposited 20% of the disputed tax liability, the Court did not find it appropriate to pass any order on such tax liability but directed that the Tribunal orders shall remain stayed.

The Quest