2021 (2) TMI 983 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court remits case for reevaluation under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, emphasizing common parlance test.

The High Court remitted a case back to the Tribunal for reevaluation under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, concerning the classification of ... Classification of goods - Bicycle Chain Cover, Bell, Cycle Stand, Handle Grip Cover and Cycle Seat Cover, accessories - whether taxable as unclassified items, at the rate of 13.5% under Schedule-V of the Act or the bicycle parts to be notified under entry at item no. 19 of Schedule II Part-A of the Act taxable at the rate of 5%? - Section 59 of The U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has taken note of the material and evidence relied upon by the assessee. Yet, it misdirected itself in approach in as much as without first deciding whether the commodities in question were parts of bicycles it considered the question whether they were 'accessories of bicycles'. Undisputedly, there is no schedule entry of 'accessories of bicycles' or of 'accessories', under the Act. It was also not the argument of the assessee that the parts dealt with by it were 'accessories' and therefore liable to tax as bicycle parts. In absence of such taxing entry and considering the case set up by the assessee, the issue to be decided by the Tribunal was whether the commodities were cycle parts - If not, only then an issue would arise if the commodity was taxable as 'accessories' or as any other scheduled commodity or as an unscheduled commodity. To that extent the Tribunal has erred in reasoning that the commodity is accessory and therefore not parts of bicycle. Since the Tribunal has yet not expressed its opinion on the common parlance test invoked by the assessee and since that finding does involve appreciation of facts, it is desirable that the present matter be re-considered by the Tribunal considering the observations made above, before this Court may examine the issue itself. The matter remitted to the Tribunal to pass fresh order on the strength of the evidence and material available on record, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him - Petition allowed by way of remand. As regards the question, Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that as per common parlance and commercial parlance, chain cover, carrier, seat cover, bell and handle grip cover are accessories to a bicycle and not its parts, and as such, these items were taxable as unclassified items under the U.P. VAT Act?, the same is left unanswered. Issues:Interpretation of whether certain commodities are bicycle parts or accessories under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.Detailed Analysis:1. Background: The revision was filed against an order of the Full Bench of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, regarding the classification of commodities as bicycle parts or accessories under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.2. Questions of Law: The revision raised questions on whether the commodities in question were correctly classified as accessories rather than parts of bicycles, challenging the Tribunal's decision based on common parlance and commercial understanding.3. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee presented evidence including certificates, price lists, and survey reports to establish that the commodities were indeed bicycle parts, not accessories, invoking the common parlance test.4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, considering the commodities as accessories based on the Supreme Court's reasoning in a previous case, which deemed certain items as accessories rather than parts.5. Errors in Tribunal's Approach: The High Court found that the Tribunal erred by not first determining whether the commodities were bicycle parts before considering them as accessories, as there was no specific tax entry for 'accessories of bicycles' under the Act.6. Common Parlance Test: The Court emphasized the importance of the common parlance test in classification disputes, highlighting that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by the assessee.7. Remittance to Tribunal: The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on the evidence and material available, emphasizing the need for an independent assessment in each case.8. Conclusion: The High Court disposed of the revision, leaving one question unanswered and directing the Tribunal to reconsider the classification of the commodities as bicycle parts or accessories within a specified timeframe.This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects of the judgment, highlighting the legal arguments, evidence presented, errors in the Tribunal's approach, and the High Court's decision to remit the matter back for reevaluation.