This High Court dismissed a VAT revision petition filed by the Anti Evasion Commissioner. The Tax Board had reduced tax on digital decoders from 14% to 5% by equating them with set-top boxes. The Court found merit in this distinction and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed summarily as it lacks merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
CTO, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur Vs. M/s. Jai Matadi Distributors S.B. CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO. 260/2014
DATE OF ORDER:
January 6,
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. D.K. Godara for Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, for the appellant.
BY THE COURT:
Appellant-revenue has preferred this revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short, ‘Act of 2003’) for assailing impugned judgment and order dated 22nd of May 2014 passed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.
[2]
By the judgment impugned, the learned Tax Board has allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee by reducing the tax liability on digital decoder from 14% to 5% which was fastened by the assessing authority and affirmed by the first appellate authority. Before the learned Tax Board, the assessee has placed reliance on a notification of the State Government dated 12th of July 2004 wherein rate of tax on sale of set-top boxes is prescribed as 5%. The contention put-forth by the assessee before the learned Tax Board was that digital decoder and set-top box are one and the same goods having different nomenclatures and therefore on digital decoder tax liability cannot be fastened on the assessee @14% and it has to be kept on par with set-top box. The said contention found favour from the learned Tax Board.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment.
The learned Tax Board while allowing the appeal of the assessee has also placed reliance on its earlier verdicts in some of the appeals and has recorded a categorical finding that digital decoder and set-top box are two names
[3]
of one product and as such notification dated 12th of July 2004 is applicable vis-à-vis the assessee for charging tax @5%. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw any distinction between a set-top box and a digital decoder. A set-top box is a device that enables a television set to become a user interface to the internet and also enables a television set to receive and decode digital television (DTV) broadcasts. DTV set-top boxes are some times called receivers. A set-top box is necessary to television viewers who wish to use their current analog television set to receive digital broadcasts. In digital electronics, a decoder can take the form of a multipleinput, multiple-output logic circuit that converts coded inputs into coded outputs, where the input and output codes are different. Therefore, taking a broader view, I am in agreement with the finding and conclusions of the learned Tax Board and not persuaded to take a different view that digital decoder and set-off box are two different products.
Thus, viewed from any angle, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tax Board and on evaluation of the matter in its entirety, I am unable to lay
[4]
my hand on any question of law involved in the present revision petition requiring adjudication.
Resultantly, the revision petition lacks in merit and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.
(P.K. LOHRA), J.
arora/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether by reducing the tax rate on digital decoder from 14% to 5%, the Tax Board erred in treating it as the same as a set-top box.
Whether the impugned judgment of the Tax Board suffers from any infirmity requiring adjudication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CTO, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur
M/s. Jai Matadi Distributors
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
