AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn disclosing sale of Printer under VAT Act as a Computer peripheral admitting 4% tax deposited under Entry 22 of the Schedule which reads as:- "22 -Computer System and Peripherals Electronic Diaries for the Assessment year 2008-09. (4) The Assessing Authority by its order dated 29.02.2012 assessed the revisionists sale of Multifunctional Printers @ 12% created a dispute of Rs. 7,23,387/-. The revisionist had admitted tax @ 4% but the Assessing Authority assessed the sale of Multifunctional Printer under Residuary Entry and therefore taxed it at rates meant for unclassified items under Schedule @ 12.5%. (5) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a Printer is a specifically designed device only for printing and is admittedly a Computer peripheral. With the advancement of technology, most of such Printers also performed the functions of Scanning, E-Mailing, Faxing and Copying. However such Printers are bought mainly for the purpose of printing and are attached to Computers and they cannot perform their main function without the help of a Computer, therefore, they have to be treated as a Computer peripheral and taxed @ 4%. The Assessing Authority however, concentra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereafter?" (11) Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents has referred to counter affidavit filed by them wherein it has been stated that the original assessment order for the Assessment year 2008-09 was passed on 27.02.2012 and on Multifunctional Device tax was assessed @ 12.5% but the revisionist only admitted tax @ 5% treating the said multifunctional devices as a Computer peripheral. On 08.08.2008, in the case of M/s Neoterric Infomatic Private Limited, the Commissioner Commercial Tax had decided the tax-ability of Multifunctional Device @ 12.5% as an unclassified item, therefore, the First Appellate Authority on the basis of the order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner in the case of Neoterric Infomatic Pvt. Ltd. rejected the First Appeal of the revisionist. Neoterric had challenged the order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner in Commercial Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 06.06.2013 had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration. After remand the Commissioner Commercial Tax, reclassified Multifunctional Device relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has annexed a copy of the Certificate issued by the manufacturer on 28.02.2015 namely Sharp Business India Limited wherein it had acknowledged that their Multifunctional Devices are used as Printers, Scanners and Copiers and more than 75% of the parts are used in making a Computer printer. Rest of the other 25% parts are used in making it as a Computer Scanner and Copier. (17) Such Certificates admittedly was not before the Tribunal. However this is not only the ground on which the Tribunal has rejected the Second Appeal. It has referred also to Dictionaries like Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English and considered the definition of "peripherals" and observed that a piece of equipment such as a Visual Display Unit or a Central Processing Unit which is connected to a Computer help in the use of Computer. Similarly, in Readers Digest Dictionary "peripheral" has been treated as an item of Hardware, such as Modem that is not specifically part of the CPU, but used for the purpose of a Computer. The Tribunal has found that a Multifunctional Printer does Printing, Scanning, E-Mailing, Faxing, Photocopy etc. which functions are mostly performed by it independently of the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nction performed by Printers which work alongwith side a computer. The printing is carried out by the Computers giving command in the form of Digital signals which is transmitted through wires, converted into a readable language, and then printed. The counsel for the Appellants had gone on to explain the function of a Scanner, which converts documents into digital signals for storage in the Computer. In this way , the Scanner and Printer serve as input and output devices for the Computer. Similarly, when it was functioning as a Copier it served as a combined Scanner/Printer. He further explained the purpose of a Digital Scanner, which copies a document and sends it to the Central Processing Unit of the Computer; independently. The Copier can also print on its own after scanning. Thus, according to the learned counsel, a Copier served as a combined Scanner-cum- Printer. The learned counsel submitted that the multifunctional machines (which included Printer, Scanner and Copier) are not automatic data-processing machines (in short ADPM) they served as input and output devices of an ADPM (Computer) and thus they would fall under Sub-Heading 8471.60. (20) In M/s Xerox India (supra) l....