HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 1/2026 M/s Sony India Private ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner, ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 2/2026 M/s Sony India Private ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner ----Respondent S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 3/2026 M/s Sony India Private ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner, ----Respondent S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 4/2026 M/s Sony India Private Limited ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Sawhney through V.C. with Mr. Niraj Kumar Yadav Mr. Deepak Thakur Mr. Rishab Mishra For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

06/02/2026

1. While impugning the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Jaipur in Appeals No.30, 31, 32 and 33/2023/Jaipur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the core issue involved in the present petitions concerned the classification of mobile phone set or laptop along with charger in a single composite retail pack and whether such charger can be subject to tax under residual entry of Schedule V of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, Act, 2003, ('RVAT Act') or must be necessarily be classified along with the mobile phone or laptop under Part A of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Jaipur, committed an error of law in not appreciating that the reassessment was solely based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.¹ He further submits that the learned Rajasthan Tax Board erred in holding that a mobile phone or laptop, along with chargers sold by the petitioner in a composite pack, falls under the residual entry of Schedule V of the RVAT Act. Lastly, he submits that in revision petitions of an identical nature, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have admitted the said revision petitions, and have framed questions of law.

3. Heard.

4. In view of the above, the present sales tax revisions are admitted on the following questions of law:-

a. Whether the learned Tax Board was correct in law in unsettling the settled principle that reassessment cannot be initiated solely on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court, or any other Authority?

b. Whether the learned Tax Board was correct in law in holding that the mobile phone battery chargers sold by the petitioner, along with the composite pack of mobile phone, can be subject to tax under residual entry of Schedule V of the RVAT Act or to be classified along with the mobile phone or laptop under Part A of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act.

1 2014 (16) SCC 410

c. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Tax Board is sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the subsequent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2025 (144) GSTR 1419, wherein the applicability of the previous judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned Tax Board in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) has been restricted to the State of Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh.

5. Issue notice to the respondents.

6. Notices be filed in two sets and upon filing the same, one set be sent by ordinary post and another by registered post, returnable within six weeks.

7. List these matters after six weeks along with S.B. Sales Tax Revision/Reference No. 189/2017, 190/2017, 191/2017, 195/2017, 196/2017, 213/2017, 214/2017, 215/2017, 188/2018, 189/2018, 190/2018, 191/2018, 72/2019, 293/2018.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV/10-13