TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondent No. 3 from imposing, realising or recovering trade tax on the electronic goods sold by the petitioner in excess of 8 per cent. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated February 28, 2003 annexure 6 to the writ petition insofar as it relates to imposition of trade tax at 15 per cent on electronic video projectors and electronic data projectors. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the counter and rejoinder affidavits. The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office in New Delhi and factory at NOIDA. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacture an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 18 of the writ petition it is stated that electronic projector classification has been done by Data Bank and Information Division of the Department of Electronics, New Delhi, in which video projectors have been specifically classified as "consumer electronic items" at serial No. 1244. A photocopy of the electronic projector classification done by the Department of Electronics, New Delhi, is annexure 7 to the writ petition. It is alleged that this clearly establishes that the video projectors which are being manufactured by the petitioner are electronic goods as understood in common parlance and in the business community. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner is duly registered with the Electron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1948. It is further alleged that the projector in question is not an electronic goods but cinematographic equipment. It is alleged in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit that a finding of fact has been recorded in the assessment order against which the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under section 9 and hence this petition should not be entertained. As regards the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has a clear right of appeal, it is well-settled that where the controversy is likely to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact it should be decided by the High Court instead of relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of appeal, etc., vide Filterco v. Commissioner of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fic denial to the factual allegations in paragraphs 10, 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23 of the writ petition. All that has been said in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit is that the general entry of electronic goods cannot override the specific entry of cinematographic material including camera, projectors, etc. Similarly the allegation in paragraphs 15, 16, 18 and 22 of the writ petition have not been specifically denied in paragraphs 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the counter-affidavit. The averments in the above paragraphs of the counter-affidavit merely make a reference to paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, which has already been dealt by us above. Thus in our opinion there is no specific denial to the factual averments in the writ petition that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied under item No. 38(iv) is 10 per cent. Hence it was contended by the respondent in that case that washing machine should be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent and not at the lower rate under the general entry of "electronic goods". This argument was specifically repelled by the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid decision in paragraph 15 it was observed: "It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that washing machine is specifically mentioned in item No. 38(iv) of the Schedule to the said Act. Therefore, it was contended that notification of July 20, 1988, cannot apply because in the case of washing machine the rate of duty specified under entry 38(iv) is 10 per cent. We are unable to agree with this co....