Natural justice and tariff classification: non-speaking assessments yield to writ review, while tablet computers fell under the specific entry.

A non-speaking assessment order that ignored the assessee's submissions and relevant circulars could not be sustained, because such failure showed non-application of mind and attracted the natural justice exception to the alternative remedy rule, so writ jurisdiction remained available. On classification, tablet computers with calling facility were treated as portable automatic data processing machines whose principal function was data processing; the calling feature was incidental. Because the State notification incorporated tariff headings from the Central Excise Tariff and HSN scheme, the specific classification under sub-heading 8471 30 prevailed over the residuary entry, and the assessment was quashed with a fresh assessment directed on the correct classification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory alternative remedy, where the impugned assessment order was alleged to be non-speaking and passed without dealing with the assessee's contentions; (ii) Whether tablet computers with calling facility were classifiable under sub-heading 8471 30 of the notification issued under Entry 45 of Schedule II to the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or under the residuary entry.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory alternative remedy, where the impugned assessment order was alleged to be non-speaking and passed without dealing with the assessee's contentions.

Analysis: The impugned order did not address the assessee's submissions, including the classification basis and the relevant customs circular, and merely rejected the claim without reasons. A non-speaking order showing non-application of mind and breach of natural justice falls within the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. In such a situation, the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether tablet computers with calling facility were classifiable under sub-heading 8471 30 of the notification issued under Entry 45 of Schedule II to the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or under the residuary entry.

Analysis: The notification under Entry 45 bodily lifted the headings and sub-headings from the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, so the tariff nomenclature and its interpretation under the Harmonized System of Nomenclature were relevant. Tablet computers were found to be portable automatic data processing machines whose principal function remained data processing, while the calling feature was incidental. The Court applied the principle that a specific entry must prevail over a residuary entry and that resort to the residuary entry is permissible only when the goods do not answer the specific description. The impugned order also ignored the binding relevance of the customs circular and was not supported by reasons.

Conclusion: Tablet computers with calling facility were held to fall under sub-heading 8471 30 and not under the residuary entry.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment was unsustainable in law and was quashed, with a fresh assessment directed in accordance with the correct classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tariff entries are incorporated by reference into a State taxing notification, the incorporated nomenclature must be construed in line with the original tariff scheme and HSN-based interpretation, and a specific description covering the goods prevails over a residuary entry when the principal function of the goods answers the specific entry.

---