Back
finds Sony India's VAT plea as IT entry unchanged
Observing that the expression "" remained unchanged even after the substitution of Entry No. 60, the disposed of a petition filed by challenging a 2006 notification. The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor held that the challenge was purely as the company suffered no .
A Dispute Over Concessional Tax
Sony India, a wholly owned subsidiary of
, imports Digital Still Image Cameras (DSC) and distributes them from its hub warehouse in Greater Noida. The company claimed a concessional 4% VAT rate under
, which originally covered
"
including computer, telephone, cell phones, Digital Video Disk and Compact Disk Teleprinter and Wireless Equipment and parts thereof."
On , the issued a notification substituting Entry No. 60 with a detailed list of 29 categories of information technology products, each linked to specific customs heading numbers. Sony challenged this notification, arguing that the Administrator lacked jurisdiction under the and that the original entry should continue to apply to its cameras.
Arguments on Both Sides
, appearing for Sony, contended that the amendment was arbitrary and that the Administrator had exceeded its authority. He argued that the original entry was broader and that the substituted entry wrongfully restricted the scope of "."
, representing the , countered that Sony was not prejudiced in any way. He pointed out that the company's claim rested entirely on the term "," which appeared in both the original and amended entries. Therefore, the notification did not affect Sony's entitlement.
Court's Reasoning
The court examined both versions of Entry No. 60 and found that the phrase "" was common to both. The bench observed that the goods specifically enumerated in the entries were merely of the broader expression.
"When we examine the substituted entry No.60, we find that the expression '
’ continues to form part of the amended entry No.60 also. Thus, both unamended entry No.60, as well as the amended entry No.60, cover
, the goods enumerated therein being
of the broader expression."
Since Sony's claim was based solely on the assertion that Digital Still Image Cameras fell under "," and that term remained in the amended entry, the court concluded that Sony was not prejudiced.
"We, therefore, find substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the
that the petitioner is not prejudiced in any manner by the Notification dated 27.06.2006... We find that any challenge to the Notification on the ground urged by the petitioner remains only
in importance and need not be commented upon by this Court."
Final Decision and Future Proceedings
The court consigned the main writ petition (CWP-26418-2013) to records, declining to examine the validity of the notification on the merits.
For three connected petitions (CWP-15705, 15724, and 15710 of 2014), which challenged , the court disposed them with liberty for Sony to file appeals in accordance with law. The court directed that if such appeals were instituted within 30 days from , they would be entertained without any objection regarding limitation. All questions of law were left open for consideration in those appeals.
The ruling effectively allows Sony to pursue its VAT concession claim on the basis that its Digital Still Image Cameras qualify as "," but requires it to challenge the specific through the rather than by attacking the notification directly.
