Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) The Assessing Authority by its order dated 29.02.2012 assessed the revisionists sale of Multifunctional Printers @ 12% created a dispute of Rs.7,23,387/-. The revisionist had admitted tax @ 4% but the Assessing Authority assessed the sale of Multifunctional Printer under Residuary Entry and therefore taxed it at rates meant for unclassified items under Schedule @ 12.5%.

(5) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a Printer is a specifically designed device only for printing and is admittedly a Computer peripheral. With the advancement of technology, most of such Printers also performed the functions of Scanning, E-Mailing, Faxing and Copying. However such Printers are bought mainly for the purpose of printing and are attached to Computers and they cannot perform their main function without the help of a Computer, therefore, they have to be treated as a Computer peripheral and taxed @ 4%. The Assessing Authority however, concentrated on other functions performed by Multifunctional Printer and treated it as an unclassified item.

(6) The order of the Assessing Authority was challenged by filing an Appeal No.589 of 2012. The said Appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 03.07.2013.

(7) Feeling aggrieved the revisionist filed a Second Appeal before the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-III, Lucknow, namely Second Appeal No.399 of 2013. During the pendency of the Appeal the Tribunal had stayed 80% of the disputed amount, the revisionist had deposited the remaining 20% before it.

(8) During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Commissioner in the exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Act passed an order on 05.03.2014 on an application of M/s Neoterric Infomatic Private Limited holding that the primary work of a Multifunctional Printer is that of printing which cannot be performed without the Computer. In common parlance, the Multifunctional Printer is also known as Printer and it should be taxed @ 4% under Schedule-2 Part-B Entry no.22 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. Despite such order being passed by the Commissioner and the Revisionist and other Traders being now taxed @ 4% regarding the sale of Multifunctional Printer as Computer peripheral, for the Assessment year 2008-09 with Tribunal did not extend the benefit and rejected the Second Appeal by its order dated 05.07.2014.

(12) Since the invoice produced by the Revisionist before the Tribunal by the revisionist showed Multifunctional Printer as Multifunctional Device, the Tribunal did not provide the benefit of the order dated 05.03.2014 of the Commissioner and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority.

(13) It has also been stated in the said counter affidavit that in the case of the Revisionist for Assessment year 2010-11 the First Appellate Authority had cancelled the Assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority by its order dated 01.12.2015. The Assessing Authority being satisfied that the case in hand was of a Multifunctional Device/Multifunctional Printer and came under the Category of Computer peripheral had accordingly taxed it @5% by the Assessment order dated 01.12.2015.

(14) Similarly, for the Assessment year 2011-12, by an assessment order dated 02.02.2015 tax has been levied @ 12.5% + 1% Additional Tax and on Appeal the matter was remanded. After remand the Assessing Authority had treated it as a Computer peripheral. Same is the case for Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the Assessing Authority has treated the Printer in question as Multifunctional Device and taxed it @ 4% + 1% Additional Tax i.e. 5% by its Assessment order dated 02.03.2016.

(15) This Court has perused the impugned order it is apparent from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal had not given the benefit of the judgment rendered in M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (supra) and not treated Multifunctional Printer as a Computer peripheral only because the manufacturer in the case before the Supreme Court had given Certificates with regard to its Printers and various models thereof saying that parts of all such Multifunctional Devices were used to the extent of 75% to 85% for the purpose of printing. The Revisionist had not given any such factual basis for the Tribunal to extend the benefit of judgment rendered in M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (supra) to it also.