STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014) 11 S.C.R. 331 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
A 
v. 
NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD. 
(Civil appeal Nos. 11486-11487 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
B 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005: Schedule 'B 'Entry 
60(6)(g) - Cell Phone Battery Charger sold along with Cell c 
Phone - Applicability of concessional rate of tax on the 
battery charger as applicable to cell phones and parts thereof 
- Held: Battery Charger is not a part of mobile/cell phone - It 
is nothing but an accessory to the mobile phone - In 
common parlance also, the mobile battery charger is 
D 
understood as an accessory - Merely, making a composite 
package of cell phone charger would not make it composite 
good for the purpose of interpretation of the provisions -
Battery Charger cannot be held to be a composite part of the 
cell phone but is an independent product which can be sold 
E 
separately, without selling the cell phone - Battery Charger 
is, therefore, not covered under Entry 60(6)(g) of Schedule 'B' 
and not entitled to concessional rate of tax and is taxable @ 
12.5%. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: Schedule 'B' of the Punjab Value Added Tax 
Act, 2005 contains list of goods taxable at the rate of 4%. 
Cell phone is mentioned in the said schedule and it finds 
further place at Serial No.6(g) under Entry 60 and is 
G 
thereby liable to be charged at the rate of 4%. 'Cellular 
telephone' is in schedule B at Entry No.60(6)(g) vide HSN 
Code No.8525.20.17. The Tariff No.8525.20.17 only relates 
to cellular telephone and not the accessories. The 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 11 S.C.R. 
• 
A Schedule 'B' does not indicate that the cellular phone 
includes the accessories like the chargers either in the 
HSN Code or by elaborating in words. The battery charger 
is not a part of the mobile/cell phone. If the charger was 
a part of cell phone, then cell phone could not have been 
B operated without using the battery charger. But in reality, 
it is not required at the time of operation. Further, the 
battery in the cell phone can be charged directly from the 
other means also like laptop without employing the 
battery charger, implying thereby, that it is nothing but an 
c accessory to the mobile phone. The Tribunal noticed that 
as per the information available on the website of Nokia, 
the Company has invariably put the mobile battery 
charger in the category of an accessory which means 
that in the common parlance also, the mobile battery 
0 charger is understood as an accessory. It has also been 
noticed by the Tribunal that a Nokia make battery charger 
is compatible to many models of N,okia mobile phones 
and also many models of Nokia make battery chargers 
which are compatible to a particular model of Nokia 
mobile phone, imparting various levels of effectiveness 
E and convenience to the users. It cannot be held that 
charger is an integral part of the mobile phone making it 
a composite good. Merely, making a composite package 
of cell phone charger will not make it composite good for 
the purpose of interpretation of the provisions. [Pa,ras 12, 
F 15, 16 and 17) [338-A-F; 336-F-G; 337-H; 339-8, CJ 
G 
Mis. Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. vs. State of 
Andhra Pradesh 1976 (2) SCC 273: 1976 (3) SCR 561 -
relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1976 (3) SCR 561 
Relied on 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal Nos. 
H 11486-11487 of 2014. 
• 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD. 
333 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .11.2010 of the High 
A 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in VAT Appeal No. 
54 & 55 of 2010. 
Nikhil Nayyar, AAG, Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the 
Appellants. 
B 
V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Alok Yadav, Sundar R., M.P. 
Devanath for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave C 
granted. 
2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants-
State of Punjab and others against the impugned orders dated 
17th November, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned orders the Division D 
Bench of the High court allowed the appeals preferred by the 
respondent-assessee, and held that cell phone battery charger 
is sold as composite package along with cell phone, and hence 
said charger cannot be excluded from the Entry for 
concessional rate of tax which applies to cell phones and parts E 
thereof. 
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 
The re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.