2016 (12) TMI 512 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court affirms taxation on Wooden Cable Drums under residuary clause due to classification issue omission.

HARILAL PATEL Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SREERAMPUR CHARGE AND ORS.

The court upheld the decision of the revisional authority to tax Wooden Cable Drums under the residuary clause, as the petitioner failed to raise the ... Classification of goods - Wooden Cable Drums - chargeable under sl. No. 169 of Schedule “C” to the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003? - Held that: - The present writ petition is against the revisonal order. The revisional order has to be adjudged on the basis of the materials made available with the revisional authority. At no stage, the petitioner brought to the notice of any of the adjudicating authority up to the revisional authority that, the item is governed by sl. No. 169. At this stage, therefore, I am not in a position to permit the petitioner to argue that, the case of the petitioner is governed by sl. No. 169 and not otherwise. That apart on consideration of serial 169 I accept the contention made on behalf of the respondents that a Wooden Cable Drum cannot come within the description of a Wooden Crate or Box or Tea Chest as enumerated in serial No. 169. A drum cannot be said to be crate or a box or a chest. A wooden drum is not specifically stated in serial no. 169. The items described therein takes colour from each other. On such premises, a wooden drum cannot be said to fall into the items described in serial no. 169. - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues:1. Interpretation of the relevant entry under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for taxation of goods.2. Consideration of the correct serial number for classification of Wooden Cable Drums.3. Failure to raise a specific contention regarding the applicable serial number before the revisional authority.4. Application of the residuary clause for taxation purposes.5. Adjudication of the revisional order based on the materials available with the revisional authority.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged a revisional order under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 concerning the taxation of Wooden Cable Drums. The petitioner argued that the goods fall under serial No. 169 of the Act, while the revisional authority applied the residuary clause for taxation.2. The petitioner contended that the Wooden Cable Drums should be classified under serial No. 169, which covers Wooden Crate, Box, or Tea Chest. However, the government pleader argued that a Wooden Cable Drum does not fit within the description of a Crate, Box, or Chest as per serial No. 169, as these items are distinct from a drum.3. It was noted that the petitioner did not raise the specific contention of classification under serial No. 169 before the revisional authority. The revisional authority found the petitioner's submissions confusing and did not see a reason to overturn the order based on the new argument presented in the writ petition.4. The Appellate Authority had initially applied the residuary clause for taxation. The revisional order was challenged in the writ petition, emphasizing the classification issue under serial No. 169. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to bring this argument before any adjudicating authority until the revisional stage.5. The court analyzed the materials available with the revisional authority and concluded that a Wooden Cable Drum does not fall within the description of items listed under serial No. 169. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Wooden Cable Drum cannot be classified under the specific entry of Wooden Crate, Box, or Tea Chest as per the Act.In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the revisional authority to tax the Wooden Cable Drums under the residuary clause, as the petitioner did not raise the classification issue under serial No. 169 at the appropriate stages of adjudication.