Rajasthan High Court
Commercial Taxes Officer vs M/S Shri Manmohan Corporation ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:19624]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 289/2017
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti -Evasion., Rajasthan-Iii, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Shri Manmohan Corporation, 8, Motilal Atal Road, Sheela
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 290/2017
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti -Evasion., Rajasthan-Iii, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Shri Manmohan Corporation, 8, Motilal Atal Road, Sheela
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 292/2017
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Rajasthan-Iii, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Shri Manmohan Corporation, 8, Motilal Atal Road, Sheela
Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 298/2017
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti -Evasion., Rajasthan-Iii, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s.shri Manmohan Corporation, 8, Motilal Atal Road, Sheela
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 299/2017
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Rajasthan -Iii, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
[2023:RJ-JP:19624] (2 of 6) [STR-289/2017]
M/s Shri Manmohan Corporation, 8, Motilal Atal Road, Sheela
Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 300/2017
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Rajasthan-Iii, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Shri Manmohan Corporation, 8, Motilal Atal Road, Sheela
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Singh for
Mr. Punit Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
10/08/2023
1. In the present batch of Sales Tax Revisions, the scope
of the controversy involved is identical. Therefore, considering the
fact that the present batch of Revisions warrant adjudication on
common questions of law, S.B. Sales Tax Revision/Reference
No. 289/2017 titled as Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s.
Shri Manmohan Corporation, is being taken up as the lead file.
2. Present Sales Tax Revision has been filed against the
order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the
Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 346/2012/Jaipur,
whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee was
allowed.
3. The Sales Tax Revision was admitted on the following
question of law:
[2023:RJ-JP:19624] (3 of 6) [STR-289/2017]
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law
in holding electric motor falling in capital goods
under entry 27 of Schedule-IV?"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Revenue has
submitted that the crux of the controversy involved in the present
Revision pertains to the classification of electric motor(s) under
the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter, Act of
2003). As per the Revenue, the assessee does not fall under the
ambit of Entry 27 of Schedule IV of the Act of 2003. The relevant
Entry is reproduced herein-under:
"27: Capital goods means plant and machinery,
including parts and accessories thereof."
5. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that electric
motor(s) are liable to tax under the residuary category, as the
product in question does not fall under any Entry of Schedule IV.
The common parlance test has to be applied and it is be inferred
that electric motor(s) cannot be treated as forming part of capital
goods. The scope and/or ambit of capital goods cannot be
enlarged in order to include within its hold electric motor(s),
without the said product being specifically covered in connection
therewith. Hence, benefit of paying tax at a lower rate cannot be
granted to the respondent-assessee.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
assessee has submitted that the Division Bench of the learned Tax
Board has passed the order impugned after taking into
consideration all the material aspects, therefore, the same does
not call for any interference of this Court. In support of the order
[2023:RJ-JP:19624] (4 of 6) [STR-289/2017]
impugned, learned counsel submitted that the learned Tax Board
has correctly placed reliance upon the judgment passed in M/s.
Gulab Art Handi Craft, Jodhpur (Supra) wherein it was held
that Entry No.27 in Schedule IV as it stood before 27.08.2008,
conveyed a wider sense, including not only plant and machinery,
but also encompassing part and accessories thereof and thus
rendered in unmistakable terms, electric motor as embedded
therein. Therefore, no case was made for the respondent-assessee
to subject the said electric motor(s) to tax under the residuary
category. In light of the said submissions, learned counsel prayed
for the dismissal of the present Sales Tax Revision.
7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for both the sides and scanned the record of the
Revision/Reference.
8. Having perused through the record of the instant Sales
Tax Revision, the following pertinent considerations, necessary for
adjudicating upon the lis in question, are noted herein-under:
8/1 That the respondent-assessee was working under the
self-assessment scheme.
8/2 That the electric motor(s) sold by the respondent-
assessee are of the capacity of 10 Horse Power to 1000
Horse Power, which are used only for the purpose of
operating the plant and machinery.
[2023:RJ-JP:19624] (5 of 6) [STR-289/2017]
8/3 That the usage of the electric motor(s) for the aforesaid
purpose is not disputed by the Revenue, either by way of
arguments or pleadings.
8/4 That although not binding precedence, in M/s. Gulab
Art Handi Craft, Jodhpur (Supra), the learned Tax Board,
while dealing with an identical issue of whether or not
electric motors could be classified under Entry No.27 of
Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003,
answered in the affirmative. The rationale adopted by the
Board was that Entry No.27 in Schedule IV as it stood before
27.08.2008, conveyed a wider sense, including not only
plant and machinery, but also encompassing part and
accessories thereof and thus rendered in unmistakable
terms, electric motor as embedded therein.
8/5 That in the absence of any challenge raised to the
judgement of M/s. Gulab Art Handi Craft, Jodhpur
(Supra), the same has attained finality, thereby, being
binding viz-a-viz the Revenue.
9. Thus, considering the fact that the electric motor(s)
sold by the respondent-assessee are used only for the purpose of
operating the plant and machinery; that the said fact qua the
usage of the electric motor(s) is not disputed by the Revenue and
that in M/s Gulab Art Handi Craft, Jodhpur (Supra), while
dealing with the classification of electric motors, the learned Tax
Board classified the same to be embracing the term "part and
accessory of the plant and machinery", it can be conclusively said
[2023:RJ-JP:19624] (6 of 6) [STR-289/2017]
that owing to their usage, the electric motor(s) sold by the
respondent-assessee fell well within the ambit of Entry No. 27 of
Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
10. As a result, the question of law as formulated above, is
answered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the
petitioner-Revenue.
11. Accordingly, the present Sales Tax Revision/Reference
is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/15-20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
