STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. M/S CEAT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this reference, the Tribunal has referred following questions of law for our consideration under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one M/s.Ceat Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is a registered dealer under the Act. It is a manufacturer of "Fully Computer controlled electronic plain paper copier machine" at Gandhinagar. It applied to Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 62 of the Act for determination of the rate of tax on such electronic copier machines. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 15.10.1992 held that the said electronic plain paper copier machines are covered by Entry 95 in Schedule II -A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and not covered by entry 97 (D) in Schedule -II A of the Act, which is specific entry for "electronic goods". However, the Deputy Commissioner held that other items like toner, developer and silicon drums are covered by entry 97 (D) in Schedule II -A of the Act as parts and components of electronic goods. Being aggrieved by said order, an appeal was preferred before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal being Appeal No.36 of 1992. The Tribunal allowed the said appeal vide order dated 7.2.1996 and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, and held that sale of said electronic item would be sale of electronic goods covered by entry 97D of Schedule IIA of the Act. Against the said order, the State preferred an application under Section 69 of the Act before the Tribunal for making a reference to the Honourable High Court, which application came to be allowed and the present reference came up before this Court.

(3.) Ms.Mehta, learned AGP appearing for the appellant -State submitted that "electronic plain paper copier machines" are covered by Entry 95 in Schedule II -A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and not covered by entry 97 (D) in Schedule -II A of the Act. She further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while passing the impugned order and it ought to have accepted the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax in order dated 15.10.1992.