2007 (10) TMI 566 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court classifies bar code printers and scanners as computer peripherals under Sales Tax Act

Great Eastern Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, determining that the goods sold were computer peripherals under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Court ... Whether the bar code printers and bar code scanners and hand held terminals fall under entry 20, Part C(ii)(a) and (b) appended to the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957? Held that:- Since the expression 'bar code' is not used in Sl. No. 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule to the KST Act or any other category, as the same has to be treated as computer peripherals, thus the question of law has to be answered in favour of the petitioner and our view is also supported by the subsequent orders passed by the very same authorities. W.P. allowed. Issues Involved:Interpretation of the classification of goods under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as computer peripherals or electronic goods.Detailed Analysis:The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of goods sold by the petitioner under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner, a registered dealer, deals in bar code printers, bar code scanners, and manually operated labeling machines. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes classified these goods as electronic goods, not falling under the category of 'computer peripherals,' leading to a tax assessment requiring payment by the petitioner.The petitioner contended that their products should be considered computer peripherals under serial No. 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule to the KST Act. Despite this argument, the first appellate authority and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as electronic goods, dismissing the petitioner's appeals. The petitioner then filed a revision petition challenging the classification.During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that the bar code printer and scanner are essential peripherals of a computer and cannot function independently. Citing relevant case law, the petitioner's counsel emphasized that the goods should be considered computer peripherals based on the language and intent of the exemption notifications under the KST Act.In contrast, the Government Advocate argued that the goods sold by the petitioner should be treated as electronic goods, similar to an ATM, and not as computer peripherals. The Advocate contended that the legislative intent was to benefit goods used by the general public, which the bar code scanners catered to a specific business class.The Court examined the language of serial No. 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule, which includes printers, scanners, and other peripherals. It noted that the bar code printer and scanner fell within the scope of these descriptions and were used in conjunction with computers. The Court also considered past assessment orders where the goods were treated as computer peripherals by the same authorities.Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the goods sold were indeed computer peripherals as they aligned with the descriptions provided in the relevant schedule. The Court quashed the orders of the assessment officer and the appellate authorities, directing that the petitioner's goods be treated as computer peripherals for tax purposes.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of the petitioner's goods under the KST Act, emphasizing the importance of interpreting exemption notifications in favor of the assessee when ambiguity exists. The decision highlighted the specific inclusion of printers and scanners as computer peripherals, leading to a favorable outcome for the petitioner.