By G. G. Goyal
Chartered Accountant
C. B. Thakar
Advocate
Introduction
Under
VAT laws, tax can be levied on sale of ‘goods’. What is ‘goods’ is always a
question of facts. However, a very peculiar situation arose in taxation under
VAT era.
Normally
when a package is sold, it is considered as single ‘goods’ for levy of tax. The
rate of tax is applied as per rate applicable to goods sold by such package.
The situation was thus very simple and straight.
But,
the Judgement in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (77 VST
427)(SC) has brought in a different aspect. In this case, battery of
mobile was sold along with mobile as one unit and tax rate applicable to mobile
i.e. 5% was charged. However, when the battery was sold separately, it was
considered as liable to tax @ 12.5% as other goods.
Hon.
Supreme Court held that, even if battery is sold as one unit with mobile still
the tax on the value of battery should be at 12.5%. Thus, the price was
separated into two rates. This has created many issues in taxation under VAT
era.
Allahabad High Court judgement
Recently
Hon. Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal with ratio of above
judgement.
The
facts, as narrated by Hon. High Court in case of Samsung (India)
Electronics vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. (57 GSTR 1) (All)
are as under:
“The
seminal issue which arises in this batch of revisions is whether a mobile
charger when sold as part of a composite package comprising the said article as
well as a mobile phone is liable to be taxed separately treating it to be an
unclassified item under the provisions of the U.P. VAT Act 20081. The issue
itself has arisen consequent to the Department taking the position that the
charger is liable to be taxed separately in light of the decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Nokia India Pvt Ltd2. The principal
questions of law as framed and upon which the rival submissions centered read
thus:
“A.
Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the entire composite set having a
mobile phone and mobile charger having a single MRP was liable to assessed to a
single classification under Entry No. 28 of Schedule-II, Part B of the Act?
B. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the
judgment dated 17.12.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Punjab V. Nokia Private Limited, to the Applicant’s facts and circumstances and
in view of the fact that Entry No.28 of Schedule-II, Part-B of the Act reads
differently from the entry considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?”
This
revision has called in question an order of the Tribunal dated 12th
January 2017 which has affirmed the view taken by the assessing authority that
the charger although sold as part of a composite package was not liable to be
taxed at the rate of 5% as contemplated under Entry-28 appearing in Part-B of
Schedule-II but as an accessory and therefore liable to be treated as an unclassified item and chargeable to tax @
14%. The relevant entry of the Schedule reads as follows:-
“Cell
phones and its parts but excluding cell phone with MRP exceeding Rs.
10,000/-.”
Both the
assessing authority as well as the Tribunal have rested their decisions on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Nokia to hold that a charger is liable
to be treated and viewed as an accessory and not an integral part of the mobile
phone. It is in the above backdrop that these revisions have travelled to this
Court.”
Contentions
On
behalf of dealer it was submitted that the ratio of Nokia cannot be
applied when it is composite one package and assumption of separate sale of
charger as an accessory is not permissible.
The
prime submission was that facts in case of Nokia before Supreme Court
were different. It was further submitted that there was no intent to affect a
separate sale of charger and that on an application of the dominant intention
test it would clearly be evident that the charger could not have been taxed
separately. It was the submission that the sale of the charger along with the
mobile phone in a composite package would fall within the specie of a composite
contract and therefore, tax could have been levied only in terms of Entry-28 as
one goods.
It
was explained that since the composite package carried and bore a single MRP,
it was not permissible for the respondents to levy tax separately on the
charger and the mobile phone.
In
addition, other judgements rendered with reference to above Nokia
judgment were brought to notice of High Court as well as Circular issued by
Central Government clarifying upon judgement of Nokia, was also cited.
On
behalf of Department, amongst others, the main thrust was that the ratio of
judgement in Nokia is applicable.
Judgements
were cited to stress that charger is accessory and hence liable at separate
rate.
Holding of High Court
Hon.
High Court analysed judgement in Nokia and about principles of
applicability of judgment of Hon. Supreme Court. It is observed as under:
“From
the aforesaid authorities, it is quite vivid that a ratio of a judgement has
the precedential value and it is obligatory on the part of the Court to cogitate
on the judgement regard being had to the facts exposited therein and the
context in which the questions had arisen and the law has been declared. It is
also necessary to read the judgement in entirety and if any principle has been
laid down, it has to be considered keeping in view the questions that arose for
consideration in the case.
One
is not expected to pick up a word or a sentence from a judgement de hors
from the context and understand the ratio decidendi which has the
precedential value. That apart, the Court before whom an authority is cited is
required to consider what has been decided therein but not what can be deduced
by following a syllogistic process.” (emphasis supplied) As has been
succinctly explained in the decisions noticed above, the ratio is the principle
deducible from the application of the law to the facts of a particular case and
it is this which constitutes the true ratio decidendi of the judgement.
Each
and every conclusion or finding recorded in a judgement is not the law
declared. The law declared is the principle which emerges on the reading of the
judgment as a whole in light of the questions raised. It is on these basic
principles that the Court proceeds to ascertain the ratio decidendi of Nokia.”
Regarding
facts in Nokia vis-à-vis Present case before it, Hon. High Court
observed as under:
“A
careful reading of the entire decision establishes beyond doubt that the Court
found that a charger and mobile phone are not composite goods. This evidently because
a charger cannot possibly be recognised as an integral part or constituent of a
mobile phone. A mobile phone is not an amalgam of various products and a
charger. Since the submission advanced before the Court was that these were
composite goods, the Supreme Court proceeded to recognise a charger to be an
accessory to a mobile phone.
The
contention which is urged before this Court namely that the sale of the mobile
phone along with its charger in a single retail package constitutes a composite
contract and requires the application of the dominant intention test was
neither urged nor considered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
consequently in Nokia did not record any finding nor did it declare the law to
be that the sale of a mobile phone and its charger in a single retail package
would not constitute a composite contract.
On an
overall consideration of the aforesaid aspects, this Court finds itself unable
to hold that Nokia is a precedent at all on the question of a composite contract being subjected to tax.”
Hon.
High Court ultimately decided issue in favour of dealer by observing as under:
“Proceeding
then to the doctrine of “dominant intention” or the “dominant
nature” test [as the Supreme Court chose to describe it in BSNL], what it
basically bids the Court to do is to identify and recognise the “substance
of the contract” and the true intent of parties. The enquiry liable to be
undertaken must pose and answer the question whether in a composite contract
there exists a separate and distinct intent to sell. While BSNL dealing with
the dominant nature test was concerned with the splitting of the element of
sale and service, in the facts of the present case, the application and
invocation of that principle requires the Court to consider whether there was a
separate and distinct intent to effect a sale of the charger or whether its
supply was a mere concomitant to the principal intent of sale of a mobile
phone.
Admittedly,
the mobile phone and charger are sold as part of a composite package. The
primary intent of the contract appears to be the sale of the mobile phone and
the supply of the charger at best collateral or connected to the sale of the
mobile phone. The predominant and paramount intent of the transaction must be
recognised to be the sale of the mobile phone. In the case of transactions of
the commodity in question, the Court must also bear in mind that a charger can
possibly be purchased separately also. However in case it is placed in a single
retail package along with the mobile phone, the primary intent is the purchase
of the mobile phone. The supply of the charger is clearly only incidental. In
any view of the matter, there does not appear to be any separate or distinct
intent to sell the charger.
Regard
must also be had to the fact that the Court is considering the case of a
composite package, which bears a singular MRP. The charger is admittedly
neither classified nor priced separately on the package. It is also not
invoiced separately. The MRP is of the composite package. The respondents
therefore cannot be permitted to split the value of the commodities contained
therein and tax them separately. This especially when one bears in mind that
entry 28 itself correlates the article to the MRP.
The
third aspect which also commends consideration is that the MRP mentioned on the
package is for the commodities or articles contained therein as a whole. It is
not for a particular commodity or individual article contained in the composite
retail package. The Court notes that Shri Tripathi, the learned standing
counsel, was unable to draw its attention to any provision or machinery under
the 2008 Act which may have conferred or clothed the assessing authority with
the jurisdiction to undertake such an exercise. It is pertinent to note that the
only category of composite contracts which stand encapsulated under the 2008
Act are works contract and hire purchase agreements. The other part of Article
366 (29-A) which stands engrafted is with respect to the transfer of a right to
use. The composite contracts which arise from the sale of a composite package
are not dealt with under the 2008 Act. The Act also does not put in place or
engraft any provision which may empower the assessing authority to severe or
bifurcate the assessable value of articles comprising a purchase and sale of
composite packages. This is more so in the absence of a specific, independent
and identifiable element to sell. In the absence of any procedure or provision
in the 2008 Act conferring such authority, the Court concludes that in the case
of a sale of composite packages bearing a singular MRP, the authorities under
the 2008 Act cannot possibly assess the components of such a composite package
separately. Such an exercise, if undertaken, would also fall foul of the
principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Commercial Tax
vs. Larsen & Toubro14 and CIT vs. BC Srinivasa Shetty15.”
Thus,
after analysing position very minutely, Hon. High Court held that in given
facts there is sale only of mobile phone and not of charger and no separate tax
on charger is permissible. The judgements of Tribunal were set aside.
Conclusion
The
judgement is very important in light of fact that it distinguishes the
judgement of Hon. Supreme Court in Nokia, with reference to facts and
ratio application, relying upon almost all important case laws. This judgement
will also settle down unexpected and unintended result for dealers.
It is
expected that the law laid down will be well followed as amongst others, it is
also held that if there are no provision to bifurcate value, no bifurcation can
be done by revenue authorities.
We
hope above will be a guiding judgement for deciding similar cases.
