Case Details: State of H.P. Versus Micromax Informatics Ltd. (2025) 32 Centax 77 (H.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
- S/Shri Anup Rattan, A.G. with I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Adv. General, Ms Sharmila Patial, Sushant Keprate, Additional Advs. General, Raj Negi, Ms Swati Draik & Shalabh Thakur, Deputy Advs. General, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Anu Sura & Shri Anubhav Chopra, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a dealer under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (HP VAT), 2005, sold cellphone battery chargers along with mobile phones in retail packs during the period in question. The dispute arose as to whether the battery chargers should be treated as part of the mobile phones and taxed accordingly, or assessed separately. The petitioner contended that the battery chargers, being packed along with mobile phones in a common retail package, formed part of the mobile phone and were not liable to separate taxation. The Department asserted that cellphone battery chargers were not part of mobile phones and must be taxed separately under the applicable entry. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that cellphone battery chargers cannot be treated as part of mobile phones and are to be taxed separately, irrespective of their packing in a common package with the cellphone. It observed that, even in the commodity classification under the Customs Tariff Act, chargers and mobile phones are classified under different heads and carry distinct codes. Referring to Entry 60(f)(vii) of the HP VAT Act, the Court stated that the phrase ‘goods sold in sets for retail’ must qualify some form of test of being composite or part of the main product, which is not the case in respect of a cellphone and charger. It concluded that the battery is only an accessory of the mobile phone and does not fall within the same taxable entry.
List of Cases Cited
- State of Punjab v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. — 2015 (315) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) — Relied [Paras 4, 9,12,13,17, 20, 24, 28, 29, 32, 39]
- Samsung (India) Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 SCC Online All 5982 — Distinguished [Paras 5, 16, 33, 36]
- Naresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab — (2025) 28 Centax 156 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 5, 18]
- State of Karnataka v. Intex Technologies India — ILR 2023 Karnataka 279 — Distinguished [Paras 5, 22]
- Lava International Ltd. v. State of Karnataka — Writ Petition Nos. 55790-801/2016 (T-Res), decided on 10-11-2016 — Noted [Para 28]
- Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner — 2017 (VIL) 16 TRV — Referred [Para 38]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- Office Memo dated 30-11-2015 [Para 6]
