Assit Commercial Taxes Officer vs M/S Shri Manmohan Corporation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3356 Raj/2

[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)