TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a mobile phone charger supplied with a mobile phone was to be treated as part of the mobile phone for the purpose of tax under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, or as a separate accessory taxable at the residuary rate; (ii) Whether the amended limitation provision under section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 applied to the assessment in question.
Issue (i): Whether a mobile phone charger supplied with a mobile phone was to be treated as part of the mobile phone for the purpose of tax under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, or as a separate accessory taxable at the residuary rate.
Analysis: The assessment was based on the settled position that a charger is not an inseparable component of a mobile phone. The Supreme Court had held that the charger is not required for the mere operation of the phone, can be sold separately, and is understood in common parlance as an accessory. On that basis, it does not fall within the entry applicable to mobile phones in Schedule B and is liable to be taxed separately at the residuary rate.
Conclusion: The charger was correctly treated as a separate accessory and the tax demand on that basis was sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the amended limitation provision under section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 applied to the assessment in question.
Analysis: The amended provision prescribing the extended limitation period had already been upheld as retrospective. The assessment order was passed within the extended period contemplated by the amended provision, and no contrary legal basis was shown to dislodge that conclusion.
Conclusion: The amended limitation provision applied and the assessment was not time-barred.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax demand failed because the charger was taxable as an accessory and the assessment was within limitation under the amended statutory regime.
Ratio Decidendi: An article sold with a mobile phone is taxable separately when it functions as an independent accessory rather than as an essential component of the phone, and a retrospective amendment extending the period of assessment governs pending assessments within its terms.
TaxTMI 
