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>High Court overturns Tribunal decision, stresses correct tax classification. 'Crankshaft' & 'camshaft' taxed at 4% as machinery parts.</h1> <h3>M/s Parishudh Machine Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow</h3> M/s Parishudh Machine Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow - [2020] 73 G S.T.R. 161 (All) Issues:1. Interpretation of Entry No. 26 of Schedule-II Part-A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 regarding taxation of 'crankshaft' and 'camshaft'.Analysis:The judgment involves a revision filed against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal regarding the taxation of 'crankshaft' and 'camshaft' under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The assessee charged these items at 4% under Entry 26 of Schedule-II Part-A, considering them as component parts of machinery. However, the assessing authority treated them as unclassified goods taxed at 12.5%. The Tribunal upheld this view based on the reasoning that these items are used in consumer goods like refrigerators, not machinery used for production. The Tribunal's interpretation was deemed erroneous as it misdirected itself in reaching conclusions.The judgment delves into the definitions provided in the Act, specifically Section 2(f) defining 'capital goods' and Entry 26 of Schedule-II Part-A. It clarifies that the Tribunal's reliance on Section 2(f) was misplaced as it does not affect the tax rate, and there is no specific entry for 'capital goods' for taxation purposes. The Tribunal failed to correctly interpret Entry 26 and erred by considering the goods as non-capital goods and not machinery.The judgment emphasizes that the classification of goods for taxation must align with the specific entries provided in the Act. It cites a Supreme Court case to highlight the importance of specific entries overriding general ones. The Tribunal's failure to conduct a proper analysis based on the relevant entry led to an incorrect conclusion. It clarifies that the absence of a specific entry for 'capital goods' means such classification is irrelevant for taxation purposes.Furthermore, the judgment distinguishes between 'machinery' and 'capital goods,' stating that while they may overlap, they serve different purposes in the context of fiscal statutes. It emphasizes that the taxability of goods must be determined based on legislative provisions and entries. The judgment concludes by setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and observations provided.In summary, the judgment critically analyzes the interpretation of Entry 26 of Schedule-II Part-A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 regarding the taxation of 'crankshaft' and 'camshaft.' It highlights errors in the Tribunal's reasoning, clarifies the relevance of specific entries for taxation, and emphasizes the importance of aligning tax classification with legislative provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
