Page No.# 1/16 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5099 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/16 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 29 May, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/16
                                                                               2019:GAU-AS:20905
GAHC010007152014




                                                                  2019:GAU-AS:20904

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1421/2014

            BRAHMAPUTRA TELE PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.
            A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
            THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
            BUSINESS AT SIKARIA COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, SATI JAIMATI ROAD,
            ATHGOAN, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM AND
            REPRESENTED BY SRI SUBODH NARAYAN PODDAR, AN AUTHORISED
            REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETIONER COMPANY AND R/O SILVER SQUARE
            BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
            OF ASSAM, FINANCE TAXATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

            2:COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
             KAR BHAWAN
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI

            3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES
             GUWAHATI
             UNIT-B
             KAR BHAWAN
             DISPUR
             GUWAHAT

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.Z ISLAM, MR.K CHOUDHURY,DR.ASHOK SARAF,MR.A
GOYAL,MR.P BARUAH

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE and TAXATION, ,,,MR.R DUBEY

Page No.# 2/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

Date of hearing : 24.04.2025, 08.05.2025 Date of Judgment: 29.05.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Finance (Taxation) Department appearing for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition with the following prayer: -

"In the aforesaid premises aforesaid, it is respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would graciously please to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or a Writ of like nature should not be issued to set aside and/or quash the clarificatory order No. CTS-/6/2009/302 dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-V) and order of review No. CTS-6/2009/429 dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure-VIII) passed by the learned Commissioner of Taxes, Assma, Guwahati and why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or a writ of like nature should not be issued directing the respondents and their servants and each and every one of them not to give effect to the impugned Clarification dated 02.04.2013 and 24.09.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam (respondent no. 2) and not to impose entry tax on the items in question under the Assam, Entry Tax Act, 2008 and any further order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fie and proper and upon cause and causes that may be shown by the parties, and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute."

Page No.# 3/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: -

The petitioner herein, is an incorporated private limited company and engaged in the business of telecasting news and events as a programme contractor as well as supplying programmes or part of the programme suitable for television and local sound broadcasting etc., and for that purpose, the petitioner operates a news channel in the name "DY 365". The petitioner, for the purpose of telecasting programmes, imports various equipment which are required for setting up of its technical infrastructure for up-linking and down-linking signals so as to ultimately get those programmes transmitted to its viewers in their respective television sets.

The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as Act of 2008). The petitioner is also registered under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and also had entered into an agreement with ISRO to provide 4.5 MHz of C Band on INSAT 4A satellite for up- linking and down-linking of news, current affairs and distribution of TV Broadcasting. The petitioner, in connection with its said broadcasting business, imported items including C-Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, Set-Top Box, Encoder, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile, which are exclusively used for up-linking and down-linking signal for the purpose of TV Broadcasting. It is the projection made in the writ petition that the said items imported by the petitioner for exclusive use for up-linking and down-linking signals for the purpose of TV Broadcasting are not included in the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008 and accordingly, not liable to levy of Entry Tax.

The Commissioner of Taxes i.e., the respondent no. 2 herein, on 13.09.2011, in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as the Act of 2003) read with Section 8 of Page No.# 4/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 the Act of 2008; proceeded to complete the assessment of the petitioner company for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 under the said Act of 2008, holding that the said items indicated herein above purchased by the petitioner company, were liable to the Entry Tax. Accordingly, a demand notice came to be issued in this connection. It is projected that the said assessment was so done by the respondent no. 2 without reference to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 13.09.2011, preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, invoking the provisions of Section 82(2) of the Act of 2003 for the assessments so carried out for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the assessing authority, proceeded vide order dated 28.09.2012 to set aside the assessment orders all dated 30.09.2011 and directed for holding a fresh assessment for the years. It was provided that the assessment for each of the years involved shall be carried out separately after providing the petitioner company an opportunity to present its case. It is further projected in the writ petition that there being a dispute with regard to the taxability of the said items indicated herein above, imported by the petitioner company for up-linking and down-linking of its programmes, the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 105 of the said Act of 2003 read with Section 9 of the Act of 2008, sought clarification as to whether Entry Tax is leviable on the equipment used for broadcasting purpose or "Headend in the Sky"

(HITS) services. The said application was considered by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and disposed of vide an order dated 02.04.2013. The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, vide the said order dated 02.04.2013 held that the said equipments would come within the purview of the Act of 2008.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 02.04.2013 and also Page No.# 5/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 on the ground that decisions applicable to the issue rendered by this High Court, having not being taken into consideration, preferred an application under sub- section 6 of Section 105 of the said Act of 2003 read with Section 9 of the Act of 2008 for review of the said order dated 02.04.2013. It was highlighted in the said review application that the conclusions reached by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in the order dated 02.04.2013 that the specified items were covered by Entry-3 of the Schedule to the Act of 2008 was erroneous.

The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, on consideration of the said review application, proceeded vide order dated 24.09.2013, to dispose of the same by holding that the specified items would be covered under Entry at Serial No. 4 of the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008. However, the Set-top Box and Encoder which were also included were excluded from the purview of Tax and held that for the said two items no Entry Tax would be payable. However, the other items for which exemption was sought for by the appellant were held to be covered by the provisions of Entry-4 of the said Schedule to the Act of 2008.

Being aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, after reiterating the facts noticed herein above has submitted that the items mentioned in Entry-4 are end-user items and the conclusion reached by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, that the items imported by the petitioner and noticed herein above would fall within the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof" is clearly erroneous. It is submitted that the items imported by the appellant for up-linking and down-linking of its programmes is not covered by any of the Entries in the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008. It is submitted by Mr. Chetia that in the order dated 02.04.2013, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, has held that the items involved to be covered by Entry-3 of the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008, however, vide the Page No.# 6/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 order dated 24.09.2013 such items barring Set-top Box and Encoder, were held to be covered by the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof". He submits that such conclusions drawn by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam both in the order dated 02.04.2013 and the order dated 24.09.2013 have been drawn without application of mind to the exact nature of use of the items so involved.

5. Mr. Chetia, learned counsel, by referring to the items included in Entry-4 to the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008, submits that a perusal of the same would reveal that the items mentioned therein, are items used by the end- user for viewing or listening the programmes or voice. Accordingly, he submits that the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof" has been incorporated in Entry-4 in a wider sense, however, he submits that the same being a general term would draw its colour from the other items incorporated in the said Entry. He submits that if the items incorporated in Entry-4 are read together then it would be clear that all the said items are final and/or finished instruments/products, which are complete in themselves and are used either to display videos or produce audios at the side of the end-users. Accordingly, he submits that construing the words "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof", in the light of the other items involved, it has to be construed that the same is limited to the other items so involved and cannot bring within its purview the items for which the petitioner herein, had sought exemption.

6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chetia has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pradip Aggarbatti, Ludhiana Vs State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1997) 8 SCC 511 and Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Vs State of U.P., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 515. Mr. Chetia, learned counsel has further submitted that whenever, in a taxing statute where there is scope for Page No.# 7/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 interpreting an entry in two different manner, the interpretation favourable to the assessee shall have to the resorted to. In this connection, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Export Corporation Vs Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in (1998) SCC Online 69 (SC).

7. In the above premises, Mr. Chetia submits that the orders dated 02.04.2013 and 24.09.2013, passed by the respondent no. 2 would call for an interference by this Court with further direction to the respondent authorities not to impose Entry Tax on the items in question, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2008.

8. Per contra, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a perusal of the items incorporated under Entry-4 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 2008 would reveal that the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof" as finding place therein has not been incorporated in a restrictive sense but, has been so incorporated to include all such instrument used for the purpose of viewing programmes in a Television sets by the end-user. Mr. Choudhury, submits that the goods imported by the petitioner involved and exemption of which is sought for in the present proceeding had to be construed to be "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof", which are utilized for the purpose of viewing of programmes by the end-users. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, that items would be covered under the items "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof" as finding mention in the Entry-4 of the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008 and accordingly, the assessment thereof to Entry Tax would not call for any interference from this Court.

9. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, further submits that the directions passed by this Court for production of the original records could not be complied with, inasmuch as, the concerned file was missing and inspite of efforts made for Page No.# 8/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 tracing out the same out, the file could not be traced out. In this connection, he has placed on record an enquiry report dated 26.09.2024 of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, wherein it has been said that the said file inspite of best of the efforts made by the departmental authorities, could not be traced out. He submits that for the missing of the said file, no employee of the department could be identified to be so responsible. Accordingly, he submits that this Court would be pleased to pardon the departmental authorities for not producing the original file before this Court.

10. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel submits that the orders passed by the respondent no. 2 impugned in the present proceedings, given the items so incorporated in Entry-4 of the Schedule appended to the said Act of 2008, would not call for any interference and the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. Accordingly, he submits that the writ petition be dismissed in-limine.

11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

12. At this stage, it is to be noticed that this Court had required the respondent authorities to place before this Court the original records of the matter to ascertain as to how the processing of the matter was made leading to the issuance of the orders impugned in the present proceedings. However, as noticed above, it was submitted that the original records were missing and efforts to trace out the same had failed. The non-production of the original file has prevented this Court from examining the manner in which the respondent authorities had processed the matter. However, considering that the present proceeding is pending since long, this Court is proceeding to consider the issue arising in the present proceeding basing on the materials available on record.

13. In the light of the rivals submissions made before this Court on behalf of Page No.# 9/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 the parties, it is clear that in the present proceedings, the moot question that falls for consideration is as to whether "C-Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile" are the items covered by the provisions of the Act of 2008 and thereby would be liable to be subjected to Entry Tax.

14. The provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act of 2001 provide for the levy of tax, the same being relevant is extracted herein below: -

"3. Levy of Tax.-(1) There shall be levied and collected an entry tax on the goods specified in the Schedule into ay local area for consumption, use or sale therein at the rates shown against each item in the said Schedule and such tax shall be paid by every importer of such goods "whether he imports such goods on his own account or on account of his principal or any other person or takes delivery or is entitled to take delivery of such goods on such entry".

15. "Entry of goods into a local area" is defined under the provisions of Section 2(b). Section 2(b) mandates that "Entry of goods into a local area" with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the entry of goods as specified in the Schedule into a local area from any place outside that local area, including a place outside the State, for consumption, use, or sale therein.

16. From a combined reading of the provisions of Section 3(1) and Section 2(b) of the Act of 2001, it is abundantly clear; and is, in fact, not in dispute, that Entry Tax is leviable on goods which are specified in the Schedule to the Act of 2008. While it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods "C- Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile" are not covered by any of the Entries in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2008, the learned Departmental counsel would argue that the same is covered under the term "wireless reception instrument and Page No.# 10/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 apparatus and radios and parts thereof", finding mention in Entry-4 of the said Schedule. The controversy in the present writ petition, is to the interpretation of Entry-4, accordingly, it is required that the provision thereof, the same is extracted herein below: -

"Entry-4: Television sets both colored and black and white, video cassette recorders, video cassette players, VCD player, DVD player, videocassette tapes, wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof."

17. The items involved in the present proceedings i.e., "C-Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile" have not been specifically incorporated in any of the entries in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2008; and this position is not disputed by the learned counsels to the proceeding. Accordingly, it is to be considered in the present proceeding by this Court as to whether the items termed as "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof" would bring within its fold the items "C-Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, Set-Top Box, Encoder, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile" also.

18. The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, vide order dated 02.04.2013 had considered the submissions of the petitioner company herein, in connection with the application filed by it under Section 105 of the Act of 2003 read with Section 9 of the Act of 2008, seeking clarification as to whether Entry Tax is leviable on equipment/goods used for broadcasting purposes or "Headend in the Sky"

services permitted as per the guidelines from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. On considering the submissions made by the parties before him, the respondent no. 2 vide the order dated 02.04.2013 had drawn the following conclusions: -

"Perused the submission and the entries of the Assam Entry Tax at Page No.# 11/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 Schedule has been examined. As per entry at Sl. No. 3 Tele-communication equipment including telephones, mobile phones, pager and component part thereof are taxable @ 4%. Further, as per entry at Sl. No. 4 wireless reception instrument and apparatus and Radios and parts thereof are also taxable @ 4%.

The petitioner himself has admitted that the goods mentioned by him i.e. major part of the technology used in Broadcasting is similar to that use in Tele-communication but, according to him as end-use is different; therefore same cannot be brought under Tele-communication equipment. Infact while imposing tax the same cannot be decided on the basis of end-use. I an item is mentioned in schedule whereby tax is leviable on such item, such item cannot be said to be exempted by judging the use of the item. Tax shall be leviable as per entry in the schedule. Therefore, the items mentioned by the petitioner shall come under the purview of Assam Entry Tax Act, 2003."

19. A perusal of the said conclusion would go to show that the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, had held that the items involved would be covered by the Entry-3 in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2008 and accordingly, would be liable to tax @ 4%. Further, therein, an observation was made that the same would also be covered by the items termed as "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof" existing in Entry-4 of the said Schedule. Having drawn the said conclusions, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in the order dated 02.04.2013 had examined the contention of the petitioner that the technology used in broadcasting was similar to that used in tele-communication but, the end-user being same, items used for broadcasting cannot be brought under the category of tele-communication equipment, the said submission was rejected by holding that while imposing tax the issue cannot be decided on the basis of end-user. It was further held that if an item is mentioned in the Schedule Page No.# 12/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 whereby tax is leviable on such item, such item cannot be said to be exempted by judging the use of the item. However, after the petitioner had preferred a petition, praying for review of the said order dated 02.04.2013, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, proceeded to review the said order and vide order dated 24.09.2013, dispose of the review petition by concluding as follows:-

"Perused the submission, entries of Schedule under Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Court. It is found that the decisions of the Hon'ble Court are squarely applicable in the present case. However as already mentioned in earlier order, the entry at serial number 4 of the Schedule attached to the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 reads as "Television sets both colored and black and white, videocassettes recorders, video cassette players, video cassette tapes, wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts there-of". The items except Set-top Box and Encoder mentioned above are wireless reception instrument and apparatus used for broadcasting for television. As such it is clarified that the items mentioned shall be covered under the entry at serial number 4 of the Schedule attached to the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008. As Set-top Box and Encoder is not mentioned in any entry under said Schedule, not entry tax is payable on such items. Further wireless modem shall also be taxable under entry at serial number 4 of said Schedule."

20. A perusal of the said conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in its order dated 24.09.2013 would go to reveal that the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, construed the items involved to be leviable to Entry as per Entry-4 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 2008, under the item "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof". While proceeding to draw the said conclusion, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, excluded the Set-top Box and Encoder from the other items and held that the other items would be leviable to tax being covered by the item incorporated in Page No.# 13/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 Entry-4 of the said Schedule i.e., "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof".

21. A perusal of the items incorporated in Entry-4 of the said Schedule appended to the Act of 2008, would go to reveal that items are one which are utilized by the end-user for viewing or listening the programmes or voice. The said items are all finished products in itself and are used either to display video or produce audio at the side of the end-users.

22. It is a settled position of law that when the meaning of a particular word or item incorporated is not clear then, to find out the actual meaning of the said word, the rule of "Noscitur a Soccis" is to be invoked. The rule of "Noscitur a Soccis" is a test for construction of a single word where there is a string of words in an Act of Parliament and the meaning of one of them is doubtful, then the meaning is given to it which it shares with other words. So applying the said rule of interpretation, to ascertain the meaning of the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus" the said item has to be construed in the light of the other items incorporated in Entry-4. The items so incorporated are "Television sets both colored and black and white, videocassettes recorders, video cassette players, video cassette tapes, wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts there-of." If every words of the Entry-4 are read together then it can be easily understood that all the said articles are some final and finished instruments/products which are complete in themselves and are used either to display video and produce audios and are used by end-users. Accordingly, on examination of the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus" in the light of the other items incorporated in Entry-4 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 2008, it can be seen that a wireless reception instrument therefore, is an instrument which itself is a finished product but unlike other goods as mention in the entries it is something which does not require any wire to display video or Page No.# 14/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 produce audio.

23. Support in this connection is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Aggarbatti, Ludhiana (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision had drawn the following conclusions: -

"7. In Assessing Authority v. Amir Chand Om Parkash 4 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered whether "dhoop" and "aggarbatti" fell within the ambit of the said Entry 16. It held that they did not for two reasons. The first of the two reasons is no longer valid by reason of a subsequent amendment, but the second reason is still valid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court said:

"So far as dhoop and aggarbatti are concerned, there is another way of looking at the matter. The entry (l.e. Entry No. 16) is 'cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods.... The context in which the word 'perfumery' occurs shows that what is meant by all the three general items 'cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods are articles which are used for personal hygiene or pleasure. The items which are excepted from this entry are 'toothpaste, tooth powder, soap and kum kum'. This exception also points to the same conclusion, viz., that only those articles of luxury, which are used for personal hygiene and pleasure were intended to be included in this entry. So the word 'perfumery' in this context would not include dhoop and aggarbatti, which are never used for personal hygiene or pleasure, but are primarily used for religious ceremonies."

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's attention was drawn to this Court's judgment in the Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. case 1 and it came to the conclusion, having analysed it, that it was of no assistance because, as it had already held, the context in which the word "perfumery" occurred in the said Entry 16 indicated that it was used only in respect of items used for personal hygiene.

Page No.# 15/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905

8. The judgment in Amir Chand Om Parkash 4 was cited before the Division Bench that delivered the judgment under appeal. It noted, rightly, that the first ground upon which it had been held that "dhoop" and "aggarbatti" fell outside the word "perfumery" in the said Entry 16 no longer survived, but it was in error in distinguishing the judgment entirely on the ground that "Entry 16-A specifically mentions 'perfumery' as including dhoop and aggarbattis". The second ground in the judgment, namely, that the context in which the word "perfumery" was used in the said Entry 16 showed that it referred only to perfumes used for personal hygiene or pleasure, remained binding on the Division Bench that decided the present matter as also the finding that this Court's decision in the Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. 1 was distinguishable.

9. Entries in the Schedules of sales tax and excise statutes list some articles separately and some articles are grouped together. When they are grouped together, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein. This is the principle of noscitur a sociis."

24. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Aggarbatti, Ludhiana (supra) to the facts arising in the present case, the item "wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts thereof"

being clubbed together with the items "Television sets both colored and black and white, videocassettes recorders, video cassette players, video cassette tapes, wireless reception instrument and apparatus and radios and parts there-of" the term "wireless reception instrument and apparatus" losses its general meaning and have to be read in the same sense with other similar items in the said Entry-4 which are final and finished instruments/products which are complete in themselves and are used either to display video and produce audio and used by end users. Therefore, the goods/article imported by the petitioner Page No.# 16/16 2019:GAU-AS:20905 for the purpose of up-linking and down-linking the signals are nowhere similar to those final products as mentioned in Entry -4 of the Schedule and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that those are covered by the item "wireless reception instrument and apparatus" as held by the respondent no. 2 in his impugned order dated 24.09.2013, passed in the review application filed by the petitioner.

25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the items "C-Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile" involved in the present matter, is neither covered by the Entry-3 nor by Entry-4 of the Schedule appended to the Assam Entry Tax Act of 2008 and accordingly, would not be liable to be subjected to Entry Tax under the provisions of the Assam Entry Tax Act of 2008. Accordingly, the orders dated 02.04.2013 and 24.09.2013; impugned in the present proceedings would mandate an interference. Accordingly, in view of the above position, the order dated 02.04.2013 and 24.09.2013 stand set aside.

26. The items "C-Band, KU-Band, Satellite Receiver, 1.8 Mtr. Antenna, Modem, 4104 Coles Lip Mic and digital Hybrid Mobile" are held to be not liable to be imposed Entry Tax under the provisions of the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008.

27. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant