(Prayer: Tax Case Revision filed under Section 38 of PGST Act, to revise the order of the Appellate Tribunal under The Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 at Puducherry dated 4th day of September 2014 and passed in Tax Appeal No.1 of 2012.)

G. Jayachandran, J.

1. The appeal by the assessee challenging the assessment order has failed before both the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal.

2. The short point in this case is that the appellant, a dealer in refrigerator spares, insulation materials, refrigeration and electrical spare parts, accessories, Television sets, etc., reported a total turnover of Rs.50,08,476/- and taxable turnover of Rs.38,26,378/- under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, for the assessment year 2002-2003. The appellant claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs.11,82,098/-.

3. On reassessment, the Assessing Officer found that the levy of tax at 3% on the sales turnover relating to the copper pipes was not in order and held that the same is liable to be taxed at the rate of 12%. Accordingly, a revised assessment order dated 10.06.2009 was passed, demanding an additional tax of Rs.2,74,832/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Puducherry. His contention was that the commodity, namely the copper wire, is not exclusively used as a spare part for refrigerators alone, but can also be used for various other purposes and as a spare for several other products, such as soda maker, water heater, and other electrical appliances. Therefore, he claimed that the copper wire has to be taxed at the rate of 3% and not at the rate of 12%, as adopted by the Assessing Officer.

5. On considering the submissions, the Appellate Authority held that copper wire is a spare part of refrigerator and is taxable at the rate of 12% as per Entry No.27 of Part-8(A) of the First Schedule of PGST, Act. Further held that, unless and until the assessee had provided details about the split-up of copper wire used as a spare for refrigerators and spare for other purposes, it has to be taxed uniformly at the rate of 12%.

6. Relying upon Section 18 (2) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, which provides: where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable, the assessing authority may, at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, re-assess the tax due after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such re-assessment, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority.

7. A further appeal to the Tribunal ended in dismissal, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

8. Being aggrieved, the present tax case is filed. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

                (A) Whether the Assessing Authority order confirmed by the Tribunal, was correct in law in prescribing a higher rate of tax by changing the description of the product?

                (B) Whether the end product can be looked in order to determine the classification of the product (in the instant case copper wire) which falls under a distinctive heading?

9. The issue primarily centres around the sale of copper pipes/wires by the dealer, who primarily deals in the spare parts of refrigerator. In the normal course, it has to be taxed at 12% in view of Entry 27 Part- J(A) of the First Schedule of the PGST Act, 1967. If the dealer wants any exemption or to tax on a lesser rate i.e., 3%, he should have given a break-up details about the turnover in respect of the said commodity, should be charged with lesser tax.

10. Having failed to provide such details, the assessee wants to avail the advantage of the lesser tax category even though he had sold the commodity as a spare for refrigerator. In such circumstances, when the concessional rate of tax is claimed by the dealer, the duty is cast on the assessee to provide material to claim the said concessional rate of tax.

11. In this case, the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority, as well as the Tribunal have fixed the higher rate of tax due to non-disclosure of the details by the dealer, by which the Authorities cannot be faulted.

12. Section 11 casts the burden on the dealer to produce the material for claiming lesser tax liability. In this case, we find that the dealer has miserably failed to produce the necessary details.

13. As a result, we find no error in the order impugned. The substantial questions of law is answered accordingly in favour of the Revenue. Hence, the Tax Case Revision stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.