Specific tariff classification for UPS equipment prevails over residuary entry where technical evidence confirms uninterrupted power supply function.

UPS-EB sold by the assessee was specifically covered by sub-entry (27) of entry 60 of Schedule B to the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, because technical reports from IIT Delhi and Punjab Engineering College established that the goods functioned as uninterrupted power supply equipment. Their possible use with computers did not remove them from the specific description where the goods themselves satisfied the statutory entry. In that setting, the Tribunal could not disregard the uncontradicted expert evidence or classify the product under the residuary entry, since a general entry applies only when no specific entry fits. The goods were therefore treated as UPS and taxable at the specific rate of 4%.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether UPS-EB sold by the assessee fell under sub-entry (27) of entry 60 of Schedule B to the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 and was taxable at 4%; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding the technical experts' reports finding the goods to be UPS; (iii) whether the Tribunal was justified in placing the product in the residual entry despite the existence of a specific entry.

Issue (i): Whether UPS-EB sold by the assessee fell under sub-entry (27) of entry 60 of Schedule B to the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 and was taxable at 4%?

Analysis: Entry 60 of Schedule B specifically covered uninterrupted power supply. The product was tested by IIT, Delhi and Punjab Engineering College, and the certificates showed that it satisfied the conditions of UPS and functioned as such. The fact that the product could also be used in connection with computers did not take it outside the specific description when the goods themselves answered the statutory entry.

Conclusion: The product fell under sub-entry (27) of entry 60 of Schedule B and was taxable at 4%, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding the technical experts' reports finding the goods to be UPS?

Analysis: The technical reports from the two engineering institutions consistently identified the product as UPS and confirmed that it fulfilled the functional requirements of uninterrupted power supply. In the absence of any contrary technical material, the Tribunal was not justified in discarding those reports while classifying the goods.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in brushing aside the expert reports, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in placing the product in the residual entry despite the existence of a specific entry?

Analysis: A residuary entry applies only when goods cannot reasonably be brought under a specific entry. Since UPS was expressly covered by sub-entry (27) of entry 60 of Schedule B, and the goods sold by the assessee were found to be UPS on evidence, classification under the residual entry was impermissible.

Conclusion: The Tribunal erred in resorting to the residual entry, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was governed by the specific entry for UPS in Schedule B, the expert evidence supported that classification, and the goods could not be taxed at the general rate as residuary goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are specifically covered by a taxing entry and technical evidence establishes that they answer that description, recourse to the residuary entry is not permissible.

---