DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAW COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM Vs. ORBIT AGENCIES
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAW COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) REVENUE is the revision-petitioner. Assessee is the respondent. Assessment year concerned is 1992-1993. The respondent/assessee is a dealer in various items including electronic buzzar. The assessee claimed concessional rate of tax on electronic buzzar under the Notification S. R. O. No. 371 of 1992. The rate of tax on electronic goods under the First Schedule to the KGST Act was 20 per cent whereas under the said notification it was only 5 per cent. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority stating that the electronic buzzars are not the item specifically mentioned in the said S. R. O. It is also stated that electronic buzzar does not announce alarm. The first appellate authority after inspection of the item observed that the item sold by the appellant is a device of signal by sound and light while the vehicle is turning to side and will come under item 2. 10 under item 2 - "control and instrumentation products". The Tribunal had endorsed the said view and held that the item will come within item 2. 10 "alarm annunciation systems".
(2.) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings of the two appellate authorities on this question are erroneous and the item, i. e. , electronic buzzar dealt with by the assessee did not give any alarm and therefore it will not fall under item 2. 10 under the caption "control and instrumentation products". Counsel for the respondent/assessee on the other hand submitted that the purpose of this item is to use it in the indicator system and that in case the automatic indicator is not switched off the alarm coming from the electronic buzzar would caution the driver to switch off the indicator. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and also perused the orders passed by the assessing authority, the order of the first appellate authority and order of the Tribunal endorsing the finding of the appellate authority. THE said finding is based on the evidence produced before the first appellate authority regarding the function of the item. We do not find any ground for interfering with the finding of facts arrived at by the two appellate authorities.
There is no merit in this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.