After due consideration, we are of the view that the question has to be answered in favour of the assessee. The items in question are integral part of printer which undisputedly is covered by Entry 3. Thus, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. Principle laid down in judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court about interpretation of ‘accessory’ also lends support to the contention of the assessee.
As regards the contention raised on behalf of the revenue that toners and cartridges have been specifically used in Part-A, for exclusion from Entry 50, and the same could not be impliedly included under Entry 4 of Part-B of the Second Schedule, we are of the view that scope of Entry 4 of Part-B of Second Schedule is much wider. While exclusion may be considered necessary from printing ink in Entry 50 of Part-A (Part A deals with ‘general’ goods), specific mention thereof may not be necessary in general and wide entry in Entry 4 of Part-B – parts and accessories of computer systems and peripherals (Part B deals with IT goods).
It is settled that a fiscal entry is to be given a common sense meaning as understood by persons dealing with such goods and not any technical meaning. (FILTERCO AND ANOTHER VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, (1986)2 SCC 103 para 12), Applying this test, ink of the printer has to be held to be its accessory, in absence of any compelling reason.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD
VS
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS
WP(C) Nos. 5216, 5217 and 5222 of 2009
Decided on 15th October, 2012.
Judgement
(Hon’ble A.K.Goel, CJ)
This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos.5216, 5217 and 5222 of 2009 as all the three writ petitions have been filed by the same assessee for three different assessment years.
The common issue raised in all the three writ petitions is whether “inkjet cartridges” and “tonor cartridges” are covered by Entry 4 of Part-B of Second Schedule to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which lists items attracting lesser rate of tax or covered by residue entry in Schedule-V providing higher rate of tax.
The petitioner is engaged in sale of IT products and is registered under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09 the petitioner claimed that the above items were covered by lower rate of tax which plea was not accepted. Assessment order dated 12.09.2008 was passed accordingly and demand for higher rate of tax was raised. The said order was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.10.2009, relying upon clarification dated 16.10.2006 issued by the Commissioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Before adverting to the rival contentions, it may be appropriate to reproduce the relevant entries :
SCHEDULE II, PART B
Comments are closed.