Ordinary commercial meaning governs sales tax classification of ATMs, placing them in electronic goods rather than computer entries.

The Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held available where the Advance Ruling Authority's majority view was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The challenge to revision therefore failed. On classification, Automated Teller Machines were construed in their ordinary commercial sense, not by technical description, and were not treated as computers or computer terminals under entry 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule. They were held to fall under the entry for electronic goods in entry 4 of Part E. The revisional classification was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the advance ruling on the ground that the majority view was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (ii) Whether Automated Teller Machines are to be classified as computers or computer terminals falling under entry 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule, or as electronic goods under entry 4 of Part E of the Second Schedule.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the advance ruling on the ground that the majority view was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Analysis: Section 22-A(2), as amended with effect from 1 April 2002, empowered the Commissioner to invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction where there was divergent opinion among the members of the Advance Ruling Authority and the majority view was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The revisional order was founded on that statutory power, and no jurisdictional defect was made out in the exercise of revision.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was validly invoked and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether Automated Teller Machines are to be classified as computers or computer terminals falling under entry 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule, or as electronic goods under entry 4 of Part E of the Second Schedule.

Analysis: The entries in the sales tax schedule had to be construed according to common parlance rather than technical or scientific meaning. The expression "computer" in entry 20(i) covered computers of the kind enumerated there, and an ATM was not a computer by itself. Entry 20(ii)(b) relating to peripherals and terminals was exhaustive in nature, and ATMs were not specifically included therein. On the other hand, an ATM was understood in ordinary commercial sense as an electronic device operating with computer assistance, and therefore answered the description of electronic goods under entry 4 of Part E.

Conclusion: Automated Teller Machines were not classifiable as computers or computer terminals under entry 20 and were correctly classified as electronic goods under entry 4.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the revisional authority and the exercise of revisional power were upheld, leaving the assessee without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In interpreting fiscal entries, the ordinary commercial meaning controls over technical meaning, and where a commodity is not covered by the specific computer entries, an electronically operated device may fall under the residuary electronic-goods entry; revisional interference is permissible where the statutory conditions of error and prejudice to revenue are satisfied.

---