9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals are identical and, therefore, these are all disposed of by this common judgment. The respondent/assessee is in the business of manufacture of voltage stabilizers and sales thereof. The assessing officer had passed the assessment order dated March 31, 1997 under section 41(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, directing S/S. Parikh Gramodyog Sansthan (respondent) to pay sales tax in a sum of Rs. 1,00,875.55 and Rs. 1,93,438 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively. This quantification was based on the rate applicable to electrical goods. The respondents had stated that they were liable to pay taxes at the rates applicable to electronic goods under the old entry 74(f) and the amended entry 74(a)(iii) of the notification, which was four per cent for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The assessment years and the tax demand vary in each of these appeals. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer dated March 31, 1997, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Trade Tax, which was dismissed vide order dated July 29, 1997. Subsequently, the respondents filed second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their functioning or operation must be controlled and guided by micro processing chips. According to learned counsel, the voltage stabilizers function as step up or step down transformers and their working is not controlled by micro processing and, therefore, they are outside the ambit of electronic goods. It is also submitted that the assessee only imported electrical goods as raw materials for being used in the manufacture of stabilizers and the use of the raw material clearly establishes the fact that no microchips have been used while manufacturing the voltage stabilizers. Per contra, Shri Dhruv Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, would submit that the voltage stabilizer is made of electronic components and since the main component of the stabilizer being a microchip, the commodity in question requires to be classified as electronic goods and, therefore, falls under entry 74(f) of Notification No. 1223 dated March 31, 1992. The relevant entries that are required to be noticed are, entry 16 and entry 74 of the Schedule to the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. They are as under: "16. All electrical goods, instruments, apparatus, appliances and all such articles the use of whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectronic goods, parts and accessories not covered in any of the aforementioned categories." Entry 16 of the Schedule to the U.P. Trade Tax Act is an inclusive definition. It speaks of all electrical goods, instruments, apparatus, etc., the use of which cannot be had without the application of electrical energy, including plant and their accessories required for the generation, distribution and transmission of electrical energy. Entry 74 of Notification No. 1223 dated March 31, 1992 and subsequent Notification No. 3420 dated October 1, 1994 speaks of electronic goods. There is no material change in these two notifications, except change in the rate of tax on certain electronic items. The relevant entry for the purpose of the present case is entry 74(f) of the earlier notification and 74(a)(iii) of the subsequent notification. The said entry speaks of all the other electronic goods not specified any where else in the Schedule or in any other notification. The rate of tax during the relevant assessment years was four per cent. Before we consider the specific case of the Revenue, it is desirable to know the meaning of the expressions "electrical goods" and "electronic goods". Elect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istribution or transmission of electrical energy, but are used for regulating the inflow of electrical energy for variety of appliances. Voltage stabilizers serve the purpose of producing a constant output voltage from a variable input voltage. As a rule, voltage stabilizers operate with an in-phase regulated transistor, which has a control input driven by a stabilized control voltage. It is possible, given a constant control voltage to largely stabilize the output. Voltage in a defined operating range, by way of the characteristic response of the transistor acting as the actuator. The stabilized output voltage serves, as a rule, to supply voltage to electronic circuits which are connected down stream and often have a dedicated voltage regulator for voltage supply. Purpose of voltage stabilizers Voltage stabilizers provide a steady amount of electrical current to electronic devices when power fluctuates in the house or business where the devices are located. Power surges and sudden power drops can cause serious damage to computers and other sensitive electronics. Voltage stabilizers store power and provide power from its reserve to attached devices, which bypasses power fluctuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is used and the principles on which it works has come to the conclusion that the voltage stabilizer is electronic goods, for the purpose of taxation under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. We are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the observations made by the Madras High Court in the case of Williams Tacks and Co. Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras AIR 1955 Mad 656 (V.42, C.N.208 Nov.) and BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] 127 ELT 655 (SC). In the case of Williams Tacks and Co. Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras, AIR 1955 Mad 656 (V.42, C.N.208 Nov.), the question that came up for the determination before the court was whether the articles specified within the list mentioned thereby under the General Sales Tax Act, 1939 were electrical goods. The court observed that: "It is neither possible nor desirable for this court to embark on a preparation of an exhaustive list of what constitute 'electrical goods' within the meaning of section 3(2)(viii) of the Act nor even is it possible to device a formula of universal application. . ." In the case of BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
