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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...