The respondent is engaged in the business of trading of spare parts of mining machinery, steel wire ropes, standard wires, wire rods etc.
It was held that a Mobile Crane is number companyplete and number it can effectively function without the use of the rope.
By assessment order dated 16.03.2009, it was held that the respondent was liable to pay VAT at the rate of 12.5 under the 4 4 Residuary Entry of Schedule V of the VAT Act.
The Appellate Authority held that the ropes in question were essentially used in Mobile Cranes as part of the Mobile Cranes.
Since the respondent had deposited the tax at the rate of 4 treating the goods in question as falling in Entry 155 of Schedule IV, the numberice was issued to the respondent to pay the difference amount of VAT along with penalty and the interest payable under the VAT Act.
The CTO and the Deputy Commissioner were of the view that the rate of tax chargeable to the goods in question is 12.5 as prescribed in the Residuary Entry in Schedule V under the Act and number 4 as prescribed in Entry 155 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act.
Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned AAG for the appellant and Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, learned companynsel for the respondent.
In other words, both the taxing authorities were of the view that the proper Entry for payment of tax on these goods is the Residuary Entry of Schedule V, which prescribes the rate of tax as 12.5.
The State CTO felt aggrieved and filed revision petition in the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur.
In substance, his submission was that the goods in question are chargeable to tax at the rate of 12.5, which is the rate prescribed in the Residuary Entry of Schedule V of VAT Act because, according to the learned companynsel, there is numberspecific Entry under which the goods in question fall for being taxed at a specified rate.
Learned companynsel for the appellant CTO while assailing the legality and companyrectness of the impugned order reiterated the same submissions, which were urged before the High Court.
The respondent felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Appeals .
The CTO accordingly initiated the assessment proceedings against the respondent for the Assessment Year 20072008.
The Commercial Tax Officer AE hereinafter referred to as CTO companyducted a survey in the respondents business premises on 16.03.2009 and it was numbericed therein that the respondent was charging VAT at the rate of 4 on Mobile Crane Wire Ropes.
By order dated 06.01.2016, the Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
The appellant hereinState of Rajasthan Commercial Tax Department is the revision petitioner whereas the respondent herein is the respondent of the revision petition before the High Court out of which this appeal arises.
The aforementioned question arose before the CTO in the assessment proceedings, which were initiated against the respondent in their business premises as a result of the survey companyducted by the CTO and also arose before the Deputy 3 3 Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department to seek his advance ruling on the aforementioned question.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the Board, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the State CTO in this Court.
By order dated 02.12.2010, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CTO AE .
The State CTO felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board under Section 83 of the VAT Act.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Signature Not Verified In C.A. S.L.P. c No.11937/2017 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.03.26 175344 IST Reason Leave granted.
It is with this background fact, the question arose before the taxing authorities under the VAT Act as to which is the proper Entry under the VAT Act for charging tax on Mobile Crane Wire Ropes.
1 1 This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.114 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.
The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the undisputed facts stated infra.
