TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o controversy as culled out from the facts are as follows. 3. Petitioner is a leading manufacturing company of consumer electronics, IT and Telecom products in the Indian market having various offices across the states of India. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and import of various products like mobile phones, electronics goods, home appliances, consumer durables etc., in various states. Petitioner, in order to undertake, inter alia, the sale of mobile phones in the state of Uttar Pradesh, has registered itself under the Act and has also obtained TIN being 09166000174C. The petitioner has its registered office at B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, NOIDA, with its principal place of business at NOIDA. 4. Notices have been challenged mainly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act and remedy of further appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal under Section 57 of the Act and remedy of revision under Section 58 of the Act and, as such, writ petition challenging reassessment order is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is submitted that from proposal sent by assessing authority and from order passed by Additional Commissioner under Section 29 (7) of the Act, it clearly reveals that basis to initiate reassessment proceedings is based on judgment of Hon'ble Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (16) SCC 410. 8. It is further submitted that in original assessment order, there is no discussion of tax liability for mobile battery charger and there is total non-appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to believe is bad. All material was before assessing authority. Notices and impugned orders are in complete contravention of principles enunciated by Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Aryaverth Chawl Udyog, C.A. No.6714 of 2009, decided on 27.11.2014, wherein Apex Court has laid down principles where doctrine of reason to believe can be invoked. 10. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that there was any fresh material nor any tangible material which would permit the authorities to reassess or issue said notice. Decision of Nokia will not apply to facts of this case. The factual scenario in the case on hand are as under: (a) The judgment has been rendered in context of Punjab VAT Act. The entry in the Schedule under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if" Rule 3 (b) applies a fiction by which it is assumed that component which gives essential character is only component which is relevant and common classification of all goods put up in the set has to be classification of component which gives the set its essential character. Undoubtedly, in a set or a composite box containing the cellphone and the battery charger, the essential character of set is that of cellphone and entire set is to be classified as a cellphone. (e) No argument was raised in Nokia and there is no finding on the issue in that case that there is a legal impossibility of making a separate classification and having a separate value for each component in a composite box containing the cellphone and the battery charger. U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Geo Miller and Co. 2004 (134) Taxmann 552 (Cal)]. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MEPCO Industries V. CIT, (2010) 1 SCC 434, where the CIT on the basis of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court sought to rectify his earlier order. The Hon'ble Court held that this would amount to a change of opinion. 12. How a product is to be taxed, is a matter of intent of the parties. In a composite contract, it depends on what the parties intended to buy and sell. (See Ida Mobile V. CCE, Cochin (2011) 12 SCC 608). In the facts of the present case, the intention of the parties was to sell the mobile phone alone, and not the mobile charger which was supplied along with the mobile phone in a composite ....