2025 (3) TMI 375 - SCH - VAT / Sales Tax

Charger sold with phone under single MRP treated as accessory, not part of mobile, for valuation purposes

The SC affirmed that where a mobile phone and charger are sold with a single MRP on packaging, the charger constitutes an accessory and not part of the ... Method of Valuation of goods - cell phone sold along with a charger - only one Maximum Retail Price (MRP) stated on the packaging - HELD THAT:- It was held in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS VERSUS NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD. [2014 (12) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT] that 'Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the mobile/cell phone charger is an accessory to cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone.' There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - SLP dismissed. The Supreme Court of India heard multiple cases and issued judgments on various matters. The key issues presented and considered in the judgments are as follows:Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the High Court correctly relegated the petitioner to the appellate authority for filing an appeal within a specified time frameRs. 2. Whether the judgment of the Allahabad High Court correctly interpreted Entry 28 of Part B Schedule II of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2007, in relation to the taxation of cell phones and partsRs.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Relegation to Appellate Authority- The Court considered the High Court's decision to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority and grant sixty days to file an appeal.- The Court reiterated the High Court's order and granted the petitioner sixty days from the current date to file an appeal.- The Court clarified that if the appeal is filed within the stipulated period, the issue of limitation shall not be raised by the appellate authority or the respondents.- The appeal will be heard on its merits, considering all contentions raised by the parties and in accordance with the law.- The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly, and pending applications were also disposed of.Issue 2: Interpretation of Taxation Law- The Court examined the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in light of Entry 28 of Part B Schedule II of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2007.- The Court heard arguments from both parties regarding the taxation of cell phones and parts.- The respondents argued that when a cell phone is sold with a charger, there is only one Maximum Retail Price (MRP) stated on the packaging, and hence, Entry 28 should be interpreted accordingly.- The Court considered the arguments, the judgment in Nokia India Private Limited's case, and the High Court's detailed discussion on the matter.- The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.- The Court clarified that the dismissal does not apply when a charger is sold separately from a mobile phone.- Consequently, applications seeking condonation of delay and other pending applications were disposed of.Significant Holdings:- The Court upheld the High Court's decision to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority for filing an appeal within sixty days.- The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions concerning the interpretation of Entry 28 of Part B Schedule II of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2007.- The Court clarified the applicability of the order regarding the sale of chargers separately from mobile phones.In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India addressed issues related to appellate procedures and the interpretation of tax laws, providing clear directives and clarifications in the respective judgments.