TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court classifies electronic video projectors as electronic goods, not cinematographic equipment, for tax purposes.</h1> <h3>Barco Electronic Systems (P) Ltd. Versus State of UP. and others</h3> The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case concerning the tax liability of electronic video projectors. It held that the projectors should be ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of tax liability on electronic video projectors under specific entry.2. Classification of electronic goods for tax purposes.3. Disputed questions of fact and availability of departmental remedies.4. Applicability of previous court decisions on tax classification.Interpretation of Tax Liability on Electronic Video Projectors under Specific Entry:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the Deputy Commissioner from levying sales tax on electronic video projectors under a specific entry related to cinematographic equipment. The petitioner argued that the projectors they manufactured were different from those used in cinema halls and should be taxed as electronic goods. The court analyzed the technical details of the projectors, noting their operation by microprocessor chips and integrated circuits, and their classification as consumer electronic items by the Department of Electronics. The court emphasized that the projectors were automatic and controlled by electronic components, hence falling under the category of electronic goods rather than cinematographic equipment.Classification of Electronic Goods for Tax Purposes:The court considered the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, who argued that specific tax notifications regarding projectors should prevail over general entries for electronic goods. However, the court found that the respondents did not specifically deny the technical details provided by the petitioner regarding the operation and classification of the electronic video projectors. Relying on previous court decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, the court concluded that the projectors should be treated as electronic goods for tax purposes, as they were controlled by microprocessors and operated by integrated circuits.Disputed Questions of Fact and Availability of Departmental Remedies:The respondents argued that the petitioner had the right to appeal the assessment order under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and that the matter involved disputed questions of fact. However, the court held that since the technical details were not disputed and the issue was likely to be recurring, it was appropriate for the High Court to decide the matter. The court cited precedents to support this position and emphasized that the petitioner's claims regarding the nature of the projectors were not specifically refuted by the respondents.Applicability of Previous Court Decisions on Tax Classification:The court referred to previous decisions by the Supreme Court and the High Court regarding the classification of electronic goods for tax purposes. Drawing parallels with cases involving other electronic products, such as washing machines and photocopiers, the court held that the projectors in question should be taxed as electronic goods under a specific entry in the tax notification. The court allowed the petition, issuing a mandamus to levy tax on the projectors at the rate applicable to electronic goods and quashing the order imposing a higher tax rate on the projectors.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
