S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 and 147/2014. Case: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Zone 1. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 and 147/2014
CounselFor Appellant: Alkesh Sharma, Adv. and For Respondents: Tanvi Sahai, Adv.
JudgesJ.K. Ranka, J.
IssueOther Taxes
Judgement DateFebruary 10, 2017
CourtRajasthan High Court


J.K. Ranka, J.

1. Heard finally.

2. All these petitions at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order dt. 18.10.2013 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short 'the Tax Board'). It relates to the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively.

3. The brief facts noticed are that the assessee is a limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and having branches in several States of the Country including at Jaipur and effecting sales of computer parts and accessories, hardware articles, hydraulic door closers, UPS, furniture spares, handles etc. and paying tax @ 4%. A survey came to be conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 26.04.2011 where the Officer gathered certain information and after investigation, limited its enquiry to "hydraulic door closers" and it was noticed that insofar as Schedule (iv) is concerned, there being no specific entry of "hydraulic door closers" and though in the said Schedule under entry 92 "fitting for doors" does find place but there is no specific entry of "hydraulic door closers". The assessee however had stated to be falling in the said entry 92 of the Schedule (iv) as falling in the nature of fitting for doors. However, taking into consideration the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sanjiv Mehra and Another (1990) 79 STC 372 wherein door closer has been held to be machinery and also taking into consideration the other material, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the "hydraulic door closers" would fall under VAT Schedule (v) where a rate of 12.5% is applicable and accordingly show cause notice was served to the assessee.

4. The assessee-respondent while contending that "hydraulic door closers" is fitted in a door and thus it is a part thereof, it should certainly be covered under entry 92 of the Schedule (iv) only. It was further contended that the door closer is fitted in a door, and thus, would not fall in Schedule (v). However, the Assessing Officer being not satisfied, levied differential tax as also interest as well as penalty u/Sec. 61 of the VAT Act.

5. The matter was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (A), before whom the same pleas were reiterated by the assessee, however, Dy. Commissioner (A) also did not agree with the contentions raised by the assessee and upheld the rate of 12.5% as well as interest, However, insofar as the penalty u/Sec. 61 is concerned, it was deleted.

6. The matter was further assailed by the assessee before the Tax Board, who also upheld the finding of both the lower authorities.

7. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that "hydraulic door closers" control/retard speed of the door to avoid any harm to the glass or wood in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT