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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...