COMPUAGE INFOCOM LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Sales Tax Revisions / References (for short "STRs") were admitted on following questions(s) of law:- IN STR NOs. 182-187/2017 "Whether the LAN Connection Cable (CAT-5, CAT-6) is taxable under S. No. 3 or 24 of Part A of Entry No. 65 of Schedule-IV or at General Rate as per Schedule-V appended to the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short "RVAT Act")?" In STRs 75-80/2018, STRs 4-6/2019, STRs 9- 10/2019, and STR 30/2019: "(i) Whether the ld. Tax Board was correct in law in holding that the networking products such as Routers, Switches, Hubs, LAN Cards and LAN cables etc. sold by the petitioner are not computer peripherals hence was taxable @ 12.5% / 14% and not @ 4% / 5%. (ii) Whether the ld. Tax Board was correct in law while dismissing the appeal in restricting its findings/reasons only to the extent of CAT-5 and CAT-6 cables and not giving any findings/reasons whatsoever in respect of networking products such as Routers, Switches, Hubs, LAN Cards sold by the petitioner?"

(2.) Since the common question of classification of 'CAT-5 / CAT-6 cable' is involved in all these STRs, with the consent of the parties, all these STRs were heard together.

(3.) Learned counsels for the petitioner-assessee submits that the petitioner/companies were engaged in the business of selling computer and computer related products, including the networking cables (CAT-5 / CAT-6) whose primary function is data transmission. Learned counsels for the petitioner-assessee contends that the petitioner-assessee was rightly classifying the networking cables as 'computer peripherals' and accordingly discharging its VAT liability by treating the same as computer system and peripherals, as classifiable under Entry 3 of Part A of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act. Learned counsels further contends that all the authorities below have erred in law by classifying the networking cables under the residuary head and not the specific head and therefore erroneously imposed additional tax and interest upon the petitioner-assessee. In support of their contention that CAT-5 / CAT-6 cable would form part of 'computer peripheral', learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee made the following submissions: