1991 (7) TMI 323 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court affirms xerox machines as 'duplicating machines' under Sales Tax Act

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision classifying xerox machines under entry 79 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as duplicating machines. It ... - Issues:1. Classification of xerox machine under relevant tax entry.2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal.3. Interpretation of relevant tax entries and application to xerox machines.Detailed Analysis:1. The case involved the classification of xerox machines for tax purposes under different entries of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The applicant-dealer contended that the xerox machines should be classified under entry 16 or entry 13, or alternatively under entry 79. The Tribunal concluded that the xerox machines fell under entry 79, which covers duplicating machines. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision and literature references to establish that xerox machines are duplicating machines. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the primary function of a xerox machine is to make copies, regardless of the method used, and thus falls under the category of duplicating machines.2. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in deciding the appeal was challenged by the applicant-dealer. However, the Court affirmed that the Tribunal had the authority to decide the appeal under section 65 of the Act. The Court highlighted that the appellate authority has the discretion to pass orders it deems just and proper within the scope of the Act. As long as the exercise of power is for the purpose of the Act and not influenced by extraneous considerations, the Tribunal's decision-making process was deemed appropriate.3. The interpretation of the relevant tax entries, specifically entry 75 and entry 79, was crucial in determining the classification of xerox machines. The Court analyzed the functions and definitions of xerox machines in comparison to the descriptions in the tax entries. It was established that the xerox machines, despite having capabilities to enlarge or contract copies, are fundamentally copying machines falling under entry 79 as duplicating machines. The Court rejected arguments based on technical meanings or advertising distinctions, emphasizing that the common parlance test aligned with the technical and dictionary meanings in this case. Additionally, the Court dismissed claims related to legislative amendments, affirming that the position of xerox machines under entry 79 was clear even before the specified amendment date.In conclusion, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision regarding the classification of xerox machines under entry 79, emphasizing the functional aspect of xerox machines as duplicating machines for tax purposes. The reference was answered in the affirmative, and the case was disposed of accordingly.