Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These revision petitions under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('VAT Act') have been filed aggrieved against the judgment dated 12.07.2011/17.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer ('Tax Board'), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against orders dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Alwar ['DC (Appeals)'] was partly allowed, wherein, while order relating to the rate of tax was maintained, the penalty imposed was set aside. The DC (Appeals) had upheld the imposition of tax and penalty by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Rajasthan First, Jaipur ['CTO (AE)'] and Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Bhiwadi ('CTO') vide assessment orders passed on various dates.

The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the petitioner is a registered dealer under the VAT Act and is engaged in manufacturing/importing/trading and selling of sunglasses and frames thereof. A survey of the dealers' premises was conducted by the CTO (AE) and, on investigation, it was found that the petitioner was collecting and depositing Value Added Tax ('VAT') @ 4% on the sale of sunglasses, whereas, in the opinion of the CTO (AE), the rate of VAT on sunglasses was @ 12.5% as per the Schedule notified for the rate of tax on the goods under VAT Act. In the opinion of the CTO (AE), the product sunglasses was not covered under Serial No.125 of Schedule IV (goods taxable @ 4%) of the VAT Act and the dealer was wrongly paying tax by classifying its product sunglasses under Entry 125 and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

Accordingly, applying this cardinal principle of classification, the impugned goods viz- sunglasses cannot be formed as spectacles.

While Assessing Officer distinguished the judgment in the case of Ramchandra Choitram Sons v. Collector of Central Excise, a decision of the CEGAT, Harmonized system of nomenclature (HSN), order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the authority for classification and advance ruling under Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, he inter alia, observed and held as under:-

As discussed earlier, classification structure of the goods in R-VAT Act, 2003 is very different from those two major indirect tax statutes of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In these statutes, the goods are covered in various sections and then sections into chapters, headings, sub-headings etc. For classification purpose in these statutes, rules for interpretation, section notes, chapter notes and heading notes etc. have also been provided.There are separate chapters for a class/type of the goods e.g. Livestock, minerals, spices, Rubber, papers .... etc. Whereas in the R-VAT Act, 2003, the goods have been grouped in different tax schedules. Hence, it becomes more imperative to go by specific description of the goods given in an entry. It can not be a case that particular goods have to be fit in an entry, though not having any mention of that goods, specifically when that entry is not an inclusive or illustrative but a restrictive and exhaustive one i.e. entry no 125 of Schedule IV. Therefore the reply submitted by the dealer deserves to be disallowed and the relied upon cited decisions are not applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present case.
Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the CTO (AE), DE (Appeals) and the Tax Board, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present revision petitions questioning the legality and validity of the concurrent conclusions reached by three authorities below.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Entry 125 of Schedule-IV to the VAT Act reads thus:-
Spectacles, parts and components thereof, contact lens and lens cleaner.
It was submitted that the terms spectacle and lens have nowhere been defined in the VAT Act and, therefore, the dictionary meaning of the said terms need to be resorted to and referred to certain medical dictionaries/dictionaries, Wikipedia etc., a reference to which would be made in later part of the judgment and submitted that the term spectacles is understood to include sunglasses and that sunglasses were merely type of spectacles : spectacles include sunglasses. Reference was made to an order of CEGAT in the case of Ramchand Choithram Sons v. Collector of Central Excise : 1990 (50) ELT 193 (Tribunal) and a order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Authority of Advance Rulings under Section 60 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. It was also submitted that the term spectacles cannot be restricted to corrective eyewear and even protective eyewear would be included in the said term. Reference was also made to the Gazette Notification dated 31.03.2006, whereby, Schedule -IV was notified and the entry at Item No.126 at the relevant time reads as under:-