9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional Government Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER The controversy in the present cases is squarely covered by the decision of this court rendered in the recent past on November 10, 2016 in the case of Lava International Limited v. State of Karnataka [2017] 100 VST 183 (Karn) in Writ Petition Nos. 55790-801 of 2016 (T-RES), upholding the separate rate of tax on the "mobile battery charger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was quoted in the revised proposition notice itself by the respondent- assessing authority and the same is again quoted herein below for ready reference (pages 433 and 434 in 77 VST): "If the charger was a part of cell phone, then cell phone could not have been operated without using the battery charger. But in reality, it is not required at the time of operation. Further, the battery in the ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mobile/cell phone charger is an accessory to cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone. We further hold that the battery charger cannot be held to be a composite part of the cell phone but is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell phone. . . '." (emphasis supplied) 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to still raise a conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd are to be taxed separately irrespective of their packing in the common package with mobile phones. 4. The said binding precedent from the apex court is binding on all courts/ authorities in the Country. It is not based only on particular entry for tax rate under any particular State. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain this contention of the assessee. The other issues of assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
