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...

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...