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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.