Court revises tax rate for printers, following precedent, classifies as computer peripherals.

The Court allowed the revision, overturning the Tribunal's decision and directing a re-determination of the tax amount for the sale of Multifunctional Printers at a lower rate of 4%, in line with the Supreme Court's precedent classifying such printers as computer peripherals. The Court emphasized that the printers' primary function of printing warranted the lower tax rate, contrary to the Tribunal's assessment under the Residuary Entry at 12.5%.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification and tax rate applicable to Multifunctional Printers under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
2. Whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal was justified in not giving the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s Xerox India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification and Tax Rate Applicable to Multifunctional Printers

The revisionist, a firm trading in photocopies, printers, cartridges, toners, and spares, was assessed by the Assessing Authority on 29.02.2012 for the sale of Multifunctional Printers at 12%, creating a dispute of Rs. 7,23,387/-. The revisionist had admitted tax at 4%, treating the printer as a computer peripheral under Entry 22 of the Schedule, which reads "Computer System and Peripherals Electronic Diaries for the Assessment year 2008-09."

The Assessing Authority, however, assessed the sale under the Residuary Entry, taxing it at 12.5% meant for unclassified items. The revisionist argued that a printer, despite its multifunctional capabilities (scanning, emailing, faxing, copying), is primarily a computer peripheral and should be taxed at 4%. The Tribunal, however, did not extend this benefit and rejected the second appeal, maintaining the higher tax rate.

Issue 2: Benefit of Supreme Court Judgment in M/s Xerox India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

The revisionist contended that the Tribunal's judgment was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Xerox India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, where the Supreme Court had classified similar multifunctional devices as computer peripherals, thus qualifying for a lower tax rate.

The Tribunal did not provide the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment because the revisionist did not present any factual basis or manufacturer certificates to support the claim that the predominant function of the multifunctional printers was printing. The Tribunal referred to dictionaries to define "peripherals" and concluded that multifunctional printers, which perform various functions independently of a computer, could not be classified as computer peripherals.

The revisionist later presented a certificate from Sharp Business India Limited, stating that more than 75% of the parts of their multifunctional devices are used for printing, but this certificate was not before the Tribunal during the initial proceedings.

Court's Decision:

The Court reviewed the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Xerox India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which dealt with the classification of multifunctional machines under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Supreme Court had concluded that such machines, primarily used for printing and attached to a computer, should be classified as computer peripherals.

The Court found that the Tribunal had committed an error in not giving the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment to the revisionist. The revisionist's multifunctional printers, predominantly used for printing, should be classified as computer peripherals and taxed at 4%.

Conclusion:

The Court allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to re-determine the tax amount payable by the revisionist within three months, considering the observations made in the judgment. The Court also noted that for the assessment year 2008-09, there was a disputed tax liability, while for other years, the authorities had accepted the revisionist's contention.

---