Concessional tax notification cannot be stretched to cover diesel generating sets; administrative clarification needed no prior hearing.

Diesel generating sets supplied to BSNL were held outside the concessional notification for telecom switching equipment and power supply based power plants, because the statutory classification treated them as separate generator sets and the notification could not be expanded by trade parlance or user-based understanding. The clarification under the sales tax provision was also treated as regulatory and administrative, not quasi-judicial, so no prior personal hearing or external expert opinion was required in the absence of an express statutory mandate. The impugned clarification was upheld and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether diesel generating sets supplied to BSNL fell within the concessional notification covering switching equipment and power supply based power plants for telecom application; (ii) whether the clarification issued under the sales tax clarification provision required a prior personal hearing or expert opinion.

Issue (i): whether diesel generating sets supplied to BSNL fell within the concessional notification covering switching equipment and power supply based power plants for telecom application.

Analysis: The notification granted concessional tax only to specified telecom-related equipment, cables, accessories and power supply based power plants for telecom application. Diesel generating sets were separately classifiable under the schedule as generator sets and were distinct from the electronic and telecom equipment covered by the notification. The trade parlance principle applied only where the statutory context was uncertain; here the statutory classification and the nature of the goods left no ambiguity. The user test and common parlance approach could not be used to stretch the notification to cover a different class of goods.

Conclusion: The diesel generating sets were not covered by the concessional notification and the clarification against concessional treatment was in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the clarification issued under the sales tax clarification provision required a prior personal hearing or expert opinion.

Analysis: The clarification power was exercised on an application by the dealer for uniformity in assessment and collection, without any lis between parties. The function was held to be regulatory and administrative rather than quasi-judicial. In the absence of any statutory mandate for hearing, personal hearing was not necessary. The Commissioner was also not bound to seek technical opinion from the purchaser, and the clarification had to be based on the materials submitted with the application and the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: No prior personal hearing or outside expert opinion was required, and the clarification was not vitiated on principles of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned clarification was upheld and the writ petition challenging it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute clearly classifies goods and the notification covers only specified telecom equipment, a dealer cannot expand the concessional entry by relying on trade or user understanding; a clarification issued administratively under the statute does not require a personal hearing absent an express statutory provision.

---