Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Com vs The Comm Taxes Officer A E Jaipur on 10 February, 2017
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
1. S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.140/2014
1. M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, 502-
506, Gaurav Tower I, 5th Floor, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its
Branch Manager (Commercial) Shri Balram Mudugil, son of Late
Shri D.D. Mudugil, aged 40 years, resident of 6/96, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Zone 1, Jaipur
----Respondent
2. S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.141/2014
1. M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, 502-
506, Gaurav Tower I, 5th Floor, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its
Branch Manager (Commercial) Shri Balram Mudugil, son of Late
Shri D.D. Mudugil, aged 40 years, resident of 6/96, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Zone 1, Jaipur
----Respondent
3. S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.142/2014
2
1. M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, 502-
506, Gaurav Tower I, 5th Floor, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its
Branch Manager (Commercial) Shri Balram Mudugil, son of Late
Shri D.D. Mudugil, aged 40 years, resident of 6/96, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Zone 1, Jaipur
----Respondent
4. S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.143/2014
1. M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, 502-
506, Gaurav Tower I, 5th Floor, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its
Branch Manager (Commercial) Shri Balram Mudugil, son of Late
Shri D.D. Mudugil, aged 40 years, resident of 6/96, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Zone 1, Jaipur
----Respondent
5. S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.147/2014
1. M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, 502-
506, Gaurav Tower I, 5th Floor, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through its
3
Branch Manager (Commercial) Shri Balram Mudugil, son of Late
Shri D.D. Mudugil, aged 40 years, resident of 6/96, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Zone 1, Jaipur
----Respondent
____________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Alkesh Sharma Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tanvi Sahai Adv.
____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13/01/2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 10/02/2017
1. Heard finally.
2. All these petitions at the instance of the assessee are
directed against the order dt.18.10.2013 passed by the
Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short 'the Tax Board'). It relates
to the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 &
2010-11 respectively.
3. The brief facts noticed are that the assessee is a limited
company having its registered office at Mumbai and having
branches in several States of the Country including at Jaipur and
4
effecting sales of computer parts and accessories, hardware
articles, hydraulic door closers, UPS, furniture spares, handles
etc. and paying tax @ 4%. A survey came to be conducted at the
business premises of the assessee on 26.04.2011 where the
Officer gathered certain information and after investigation,
limited its enquiry to "hydraulic door closers" and it was noticed
that insofar as Schedule (iv) is concerned, there being no specific
entry of "hydraulic door closers" and though in the said Schedule
under entry 92 "fitting for doors" does find place but there is no
specific entry of "hydraulic door closers". The assessee however
had stated to be falling in the said entry 92 of the Schedule (iv)
as falling in the nature of fitting for doors. However, taking into
consideration the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sanjiv Mehra and Another
(1990) 79 STC 372 wherein door closer has been held to be
machinery and also taking into consideration the other material,
the Assessing Officer was of the view that the "hydraulic door
closers" would fall under VAT Schedule (v) where a rate of 12.5%
is applicable and accordingly show cause notice was served to
the assessee.
4. The assessee-respondent while contending that "hydraulic
door closers" is fitted in a door and thus it is a part thereof, it
should certainly be covered under entry 92 of the Schedule (iv)
only. It was further contended that the door closer is fitted in a
5
door, and thus, would not fall in Schedule (v). However, the
Assessing Officer being not satisfied, levied differential tax as
also interest as well as penalty u/Sec 61 of the VAT Act.
5. The matter was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (A),
before whom the same pleas were reiterated by the assessee,
however, Dy. Commissioner (A) also did not agree with the
contentions raised by the assessee and upheld the rate of 12.5%
as well as interest, However, insofar as the penalty u/Sec.61 is
concerned, it was deleted.
6. The matter was further assailed by the assessee before the
Tax Board, who also upheld the finding of both the lower
authorities.
7. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended
that "hydraulic door closers" control/retard speed of the door to
avoid any harm to the glass or wood in the door and thus would
clearly fall within the specific entry 92 of the Schedule (iv) alone
which is the entry known as "fitting for doors". Counsel also
contended the there is no "hydraulic door closer" and it is simple
door closer and it is merely a device fitted in a door and all the
authorities have gone wrong in taking it to the residuary entry in
Schedule (v) when it is certainly covered under entry 92 of
Schedule (iv). Counsel also tried to distinguish the judgment of
the Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Sanjiv Mehra and Another (supra) and also contended
6
that definition as given in Wikipedia cannot be relied upon, and
thus, contended that question of law arise out of the order of the
Tax Board and relied on judgment of the Apex Court & the other
authorities in the case of Ponds India Ltd. (Merged with H.L.
Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow (2008) 15
VST 256 (SC), Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sharma
Chemical Works (2003) 132 STC 251 (SC), Commissioner
of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Vicco Laboratories 2005
(179) E.L.T. 17 (SC), Commissioner of Central Excise &
Custom (Appeals), Ahmedabad Vs. Narayan Polyplast
2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (SC), Commissioner of Central
Excise, Mumbai Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 2005 (179)
E.L.T. 21 (SC), Union of India Vs. Garware Nylons Ltd.
1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (SC), Polestar Electronic (PVT) Ltd Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, and Another (1978)
41 STC 409, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and Others.
(2010) 29 VST 214 (Mad) & M.K. Industries Vs. State of
Gujrat (1993) 90 STC 207.
8. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent contended that
all the three authorities in unison have found that "hydraulic
door closers" is entirely a different product and its use is also
different and it cannot fall within the entry 92 of Schedule (iv).
Counsel also contended that the "hydraulic door closers" even as
7
per the assessee is a mechanical device and it contains 16
components namely; hydraulic Oil filling and spring and other
parts. Counsel contended that fitting for doors would mean
Hinges-butt, Handle & latch etc. Counsel also contended that
Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
Sanjiv Mehra and Another (supra) has considered the same
product and had come to the conclusion that "hydraulic door
closers" is not a part of the door and detailed reasoning has been
given by the Court in coming to the said conclusion. Counsel also
contended that even the Apex Court has held that Wikipedia can
reasonably be considered to be one of the basis for ascertaining
and relied upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the
case of Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. Vs. Oil India
Limited and Ors. (2008) 14 VST 9 (Gauhati).
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on
record. In my view, the finding reached by all the three
authorities in unison appears to be just and proper and is not
required to be interfered with.
10. It would be appropriate to quote the specific entry 92 of the
Schedule (iv) which reads as under:-
92. Nuts, bolts, screws, fasteners, Fitting for
doors, window and furniture including
(1) hinges-butt, piano, narrow, tee, handles for
locks, furniture handles, furniture knobs, drawer
Channel, furniture fitting, furniture hinges,
8
furniture catchers,
(2) nails, revets, cotter pins, staples, panel pins,
blue cut taks, hob nails, stars, studs, iron heels,
bullock and horse shoes and nails,
(3) chains of all kinds,
(4) all kinds of metal sections, including slotted
angles, shelves and accessories,
(5) rods, rails, channels and curtain fittings,
(6) tower bolts, handles, aldrops, window stay,
gate hook, door stopper, brackets, card clamp,
clips, corners, washers, eyelets, hooks and eyes,
hangers, hasps, pegs, pelmet fittings, sliding door
fittings, stoppers, suspenders, springs, magic
eyes, trolley wheels, pulleys and holdfasts,
(7) wire brushes,
(8) wire mesh, metal mesh, wire netting and
barbed wire.
11. The above shows various parts of door fittings namely';
Stoppers, Suspender, Springs, Magic Eye, Trolley Wheels, Pulleys
& Holdfasts etc but "hydraulic door closers" does not find place in
it. "Hydraulic door closers" appears to be a mechanical device
and as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, it stops the
speed of the door or retard the speed. Even if, one takes into
consideration the common parlance test which even the Apex
Court time and again in the case of classification has taken into
consideration it prima-facie appears that if a person asks from
the dealer about part of fitting of doors, it would certainly mean
to be Stoppers, Suspender, Springs, Magic Eye, Trolley Wheels,
Pulleys & Holdfasts & Channels etc. but none would give
"hydraulic door closers" as fitting for doors. It is only if one
requires "hydraulic door closers" then the shop-keeper may give.
9
In my view, aid of Wikipedia can certainly be taken into
consideration by both the sides. If, some aid can be taken out of
the meaning given by Wikipedia as it is also an encyclopedia, it
may not be wholly reliable but certainly it can be taken into
consideration and even the Apex Court has held that aid of
Wikipedia can also be taken into consideration. All the three
Authorities have taken into consideration what is Door Closer,
Door Furniture fitting & Door Stops in Wikipedia which reads as
under:-
"Door Closer
A door closer is a mechanical device that closes a
door, in general, after someone opens it, or after it
was automatically opened. Choosing a door closer
can involve the consideration of a variety of
criteria. In addition to the closer's performance in
fire situations, other criteria may include resistance
to opening force (for use by disabled or infirm) as
well as health, safety, durability, risk of
vandalism/ligature and aesthetics.
Door furniture (Fittings)
Door furniture of hardware refers to any of the
items that are attached to a door or a drawer to
enhance its functionality or appearance. This
includes items such a hinges, handles, door stops
etc.
Door Stops-
Door stops are simple device used to prevent a
door from coming into contact with another object
(typically a wall). Without the door stop, damage
might be done to the wall. They may either absorb
the force of a moving door or hold the door in place
to prevent unintended motion."
12. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the
counsel for the assessee and also by all the three authorities. It
10
would be appropriate to quote the relevant para of the judgment
of the Karnataka High Court in the case ofState of Karnataka
Vs. Sanjiv Mehra and Another (supra) which is as under :-
"This Court again had an occasion to explain the concept
of the term "machinery" in K. B. Dani v. State of
Karnataka. This Court in that decision after referring to
several decisions on the point, held thus :
"..... 'machine' means a mechanical device
consisting of a planned and an organised
arrangement of various parts, each part
having definite functions and, as a result of
combined functioning, does some work, which
may be impossible or difficult for human
physical power to perform or even if it can be
done it cannot be done continuously for a long
period or with the speed and with the same
uniformity with which the machinery does the
same work. Supply of power to the machine
could be either by the natural forces or by
human or animal energy, or electric energy or
any other type of energy."
In the present cases, the respondent produced certain
literature before the assessing authority in support of its
contention that door closers should be treated as
hardware. According to the respondent the term "door
closers" was deal with and considered by a committee
known as Builders Hardware Section Committee
constituted under the aegis of Indian Standards
Institution, New Delhi, and produced the brochure
entitled "Indian Standard Specification for Door Closers
(Hydraulically Regulated)" which stated that automatic
door closers are being increasingly used by builders.
According to the said brochure "a hydraulic door closer is
an equipment for automatic closing of doors by the help
of spring such that the phase of closing is slowed down
by a hydraulic damper". Applying the test laid down by
the Privy Council and this Court in the decisions referred
to above, it is clear that the contraption or device known
as door closer consists of an arrangement having certain
parts containing several materials which uses hydraulic oil
11
filling and also with the main arm securely fitted to the
shaft by a square or hexagonal profile or profile of any
other suitable shape with a nut and a washer. The
assembly consists of not less than sixteen items of
material. Thus, the function of the door closer being one
to retard the closing of the door by use of a hydraulic
damper, the device clearly comes within the description of
"machine". We are aware of the decision of the Supreme
Court which says that there should not be any technical
approach nor should a commodity be understood in any
technical sense but in the ordinary parlance of
commercial context to class an item of goods in one
category or another. In the present cases, considering the
nature of the arrangement of the device and its functions
it cannot be said that it is merely a door hinge and a
simple device, not to be called a machine. Therefore, we
cannot but reject the contentions raised on behalf of the
respondent. The above discussion leads to the irresistible
conclusion that door closers of the type sold by the
respondent are machinery for the purpose of entry 20 of
the Second Schedule to the Act and the decision to the
contrary rendered by the Tribunal will have to be set
aside restoring the orders of the assessing and appellate
authorities."
13. In my view, the above judgment covers the same issue and
I do not find any distinguishing feature as contended by the
counsel for the petitioner.
14. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid and concurrent finding recorded by all the three authorities in unison no interference is required in the orders impugned.
15. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the order impugned so as to call for interference by this Court and the batch of petitions being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA)J. S. Kumawat Jr. P.A.