- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Department, under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated December 17, 2002 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, "the Board") in Appeal No. 1339 of 2002 whereby the Tax Board rejected the appeal of the petitioner-Department and held that "optional service charges" at Rs. 200 per refrigerator would not form part of taxable sale price in the hands of respondent-assessee. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a limited company and is in the business of refrigerators and washing machines, etc. As per the separate contract of warranty the respondent charged "optional service charges" at Rs. 200 per refrigerator from the consumers for providing after-sale services in respect of refrigerator sold by the respondent for a period of four years, this Scheme was only optional and not necessarily every customer used to agree to this. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (in short, "the ACTO") was of the view that since, the additional amount was charged and it was charged separately, therefore, it is also to be added in sale value and sales tax is liable to be paid by the assessee on it. The assessing officer also rejected the agreement of the respondent with buyer that amount collected by it is entirely distinct and separate and cannot be said to be part of sale price as it is charged after sale has been effected only to those who opts to undergo the scheme. Thus, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation and thus added the overall amount, treated it as part of turnover liable to sales tax and not only levied sales tax but charged interest under section 58 and even levied penalty under section 65 of the RST Act.
(2.) Dissatisfied with the order passed by the ACTO the respondent-company preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, (in short, (DC (A)), who after going through the order passed by the ACTO sustained the order of ACTO in so far as levy of sales tax and interest is concerned but deleted the penalty. Being dissatisfied with the order of DC (A), the respondent-company filed appeal before the Tax Board, who vide order dated December 17, 2002 accepted the appeal of the company by holding that in other similar matters in similar circumstances and also in the cases of Whirlpool India Ltd., 2013 58 VST 177 , Godrej G.E. Appliances Limited, 2011 46 VST 372 and Kelvinator India,1993 90 STC 336 , etc., the Board was of the consistent view that optional service charge is not part of the turnover and it is opted only by few customers and it was not binding upon the customers to opt for this optional service charges ultimately, the Board accepted the view of the assessee and allowed the appeal.
(3.) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tax Board, the petitioner filed this revision petition by challenging the order by raising following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the optional service charge is part of sale or not? (2) Whether the order of assessing authority for levying tax and interest is correct or not? (3) Whether the order passed by the DC (Appeals) Jaipur for upholding the order of AA is correct or not? (4) Whether the judgment passed by learned Tax Board, Ajmer is legal one?;