Skip to main content

Supreme Court says mobile phone charger not part of phone

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a mobile phone battery charger is an accessory to a phone and not a part of the cellphone, thereby subjecting it to a different tax rate.

A bench of justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Madan B. Lokur held that a “battery charger cannot be held to be a composite part of the cellphone but is an independent product which can be sold separately, without selling the cell phone.”

The judgment came in a dispute involving Nokia India Pvt. Ltd where the assessing authority held that the battery charger was an accessory chargeable to tax at the rate of 12.5%, and after including interest and penalty, demanded an additional Rs.2.16 crore from Nokia for the assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.3.1 crore for the assessment year 2006-07.

While a concessional rate of tax at 4% applies to cellphones and parts, accessories are a separate item liable to be taxed at the general rate of 12.5% and not at the concessional rate applicable to the cell phones.

Nokia argued that so long as no separate amount for battery charger was being claimed from the customers when they were being sold with the phone, they should be taxed at 4%.

According to it, a charger is an integral part of the cellphone since the phone cannot be operated without the charger and when any person comes for cell phone, he purchases the cell phone and then automatically takes away the charger for which no separate money is charged.​

While setting aside the penalties, the Value Added Tax Tribunal at Chandigarh dismissed Nokia’s appeals. Nokia further appealed to the Punjab and Haryana high court which held in Nokia’s favour “holding that the battery charger is a part of the composite package of cell phone”.

The Supreme Court set aside the high court’s order affirming the decision of the tribunal.

Article referred: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/1huv4rsPqICA0KRwfcCasJ/Supreme-Court-says-mobile-phone-charger-not-part-of-phone.html#nav=editor_picks

Comments

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...