Remanded

M/S Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- v

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2023TAXC/118/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order directs the Industrial Tribunal to refer the question of VAT applicability on set top boxes supplied to consumers to the High Court under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act. The court held that the reference was called for to determine if the supply constitutes a work contract, catering contract, or higher purchase contract.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal directed to send reference to High Court under Section 55(2) of Chhattisgarh VAT Act to determine VAT applicability on set top box supply.

M/S Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

TAXC No. 118 of 2023

¶5

M/s Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd. C/o. J.K. Electronics And Electrical, Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- V District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner	-	Shri Yogendra Aldak and Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, Advocates.
For State/respondent	-	Shri Vikram Sharma, Dy Government Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶15

01/08/2023

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who supplies the set top box to decode the signals to the customers, which the customers is able to see the various channels in the television is called Consumer Premises Equipment (CPE) and it has not been sold to the customers as they only charge the subscription charges. It is further stated that the effective control is with the company and the ownership of the set top box lies with the company and all the insurance are being carried out paid by the company so as to infer that the ownership remains with the

¶18

¶19

company/petitioner. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petition only on the ground that it involves a factual issues. He further submits that again the certain findings have been made by the High Court of Tripura, against which the SLP is pending before the Supreme Court wherein the notices have been issued. Therefore, the reference should have been made by the Tribunal.

¶20

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

Having considered the facts of the case, the primary contention of the petitioner is that the entire control of ownership lies with the petitioner in respect of the set top box which has not been transferred. Taking into the element of the contract at the threshold, we feel it that the reference is called for, therefore, under Section 55 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, the learned Tribunal is directed to send reference as to whether the VAT would be applicable in respect of set top box supplied to the consumer and as to whether the same can be enveloped under the work contract or higher purchase contract or a catering contract.

¶22

In view of above direction, the present petition is disposed of.

¶23

SD/-	SD/-
(Goutam Bhaduri)	( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal )
Judge	Judge

¶24

Amardeep

M/S Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilharan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shahid Vs Smt. Farjana Khatoon

Bhojraj Nishad Vs Smt. Pratima Nishad

Smt. Sarswati Vs Ram Shankar