State Of H.P. & Ors. vs . M/S Micormax Informatics
2023 Latest Caselaw 16196 HP

State of H.P. & Ors. vs. M/s Micormax Informatics Ltd.

.

Civil Revision No.11 of 2023

12.10.2023 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocates

General, Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms. Anu Sura, Advocate (through Video Conferencing)

and Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent.

Civil Revision No.11 of 2023

This Revision is admitted to consider the following

questions of law:

A. Whether the Ld. Tribunal has failed to appreciate the entries made in the Schedules of the HP VAT Act,

2005 in respect of goods/articles/commodities/items to be taxed as per the rates prescribed in the Schedules

appended to the H.P. VAT Act, 2005.

B. Whether the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly interpreted

the contents of the judgment in Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed by the Authorities below without adhering to the legal proposition settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

C. Whether the orders of the Ld. Tax Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the provisions laid down in the VAT Act and the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nokia's case.

D. Whether the order of the Ld. Tax Tribunal has wrongly treated the mobile battery charger taxable@5% instead of 13.75% at par with cell phone chargeable @5%.

E. Whether the Ld. Tax Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned order especially when as per

.

entry No. 60(f)(vii) of part-II A of schedule-A of the

HP VAT Act., 2005, does not include mobile charger and other accessories.

F. Whether the cell phone charger is an accessory to the cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone. The battery charger cannot be held to be a composite part

of the cell phone, but it is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell

phone. The Ld. H.P. Tax Tribunal has miserably failed

to appreciate this aspect and wrongly held that the battery charger is a part of the cell phone.

List on 14th May, 2024.

CMP No.764 of 2023

Since the points raised require elaborate hearing, we are

not inclined to grant any stay as sought for in the application.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

( M.S. Ramachandra Rao ) Chief Justice

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge October 12, 2023 (vt)