High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 06 KL CK 0200

State Of Kerala vs Smt. K. Sabeena Power Pack Industries, 3/306, Pudussery Junction Palakkad, Pin 678007

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 June 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J · K.Vinod Chandran, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
O.T. Rev. No. 41 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 296 words

K. Vinod Chandran, J

1.

The short question canvassed by the Revenue in this revision is as to whether ''compressor motor for refrigerator'' would be taxable at the rate of 20% or 12.5%. While the assessee claimed its product to be exigible to tax at the rate of 12.5%, the assessing officer, while completing the assessment for the year 2006-07, found that with effect from 01.07.2006 certain items have been imposed tax at the rate of 20% as per Section 6(1)(a) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Refrigerator being listed as Sl.No.7 with HSN Code-8418, it is deduced that even the spare parts of such refrigerators ought to be levied tax at the rate of 20%. While the first appellate authority confirmed the finding of the assessing officer, the Tribunal reversed the same and accepted the claim of the assessee. Hence, the Revenue is before us. The Revenue has raised a number of questions of law, which, in fact, are unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly the assessee deals with compressor motor for refrigerators and the same is included in S.R.O.82/2006 dated 21.01.2006 under Entry 32(21). Hence, for the assessment year compressor motors used in refrigerators are taxable at the rate of 12.5% and the mere inclusion of refrigerators in Section 6(1)(a) making it taxable at the rate of 20% cannot at all change the levy with respect to compressor motors. The item sold by the assessee has been specifically mentioned in S.R.O.82/2006, which was brought in before the said assessment order. On the said finding, we feel that the Tribunal''s order requires no interference and the revision is rejected, since there are no questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.