Skip to main content

Case Analysis :- Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax


Citation :-ILR 2005 KAR 2210, 2006 144 STC 59 Kar

Decided on:- 31 January 2005

Background

An important question as to whether an Automated Teller Machines(ATM) can be termed as a computer came up before the courts in this case. In the state of Karnataka under state tax law, electronic goods were taxed at rate of 12% while computer terminals were taxed at 4%. The question was at what rate will an ATM be taxed and under what schedule of the state tax law will it fall. Whether an ATM is an electronic good or a computer terminal was needed to be clarified by the court so as to decide what will be the tax that Diebold Systems will be liable to pay 

Facts 

This case came up before the Karnataka High Court as an appeal. The appellants in this case, which is Diebold Pvt Ltd is a company engaged in the manufacture and supply of Automated teller machines(ATM). The Company in order to clarify the rate of tax that is applicable on the sale of ATM approached the Advance Ruling Authority which was constituted under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Diebold Systems filed an application in Form 54 as provided under Rule 27-E (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. As a result, the company had appeared before the authority and made had their submissions as to the facts, literature, and description of the ATM. Appearing for the company was Sri Mohan Mudkavi the learned Chartered Accountant along with the Vice-President of the Company.

The judgment of the Advance Ruling Authority

The majority view of the ARA was to classify ATMs as "computer terminals" liable for 4% basic tax as they would fall under Entry 20(ii)(b) of Part 'C' of Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. However, The Chairman of the ARA dissented from the majority view. In his opinion, ATMs would fit into the description of electronic goods, parts, and accessories thereof. They would thus attract the basic rate of tax of 12% and would fall under Entry 4 of Part 'E' of the Second Schedule to the KST Act.

Order by Commissioner of Commercial Tax

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being of the view, that the authority for clarification and Advance Ruling has erroneously classified ATM's as "computer terminals" and thereby has caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue, therefore it initiated suo-moto revisional proceedings under Section 22-A(1) of the Act by issuing a show-cause notice directing the appellant company Diebold Systems to show cause, why the order passed by the Authority for clarification and Advance Ruling should not be set aside and the 'goods' in question should not be treated as "electronic goods".The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, after considering the reply filed by the appellant company passed an order that ATMs cannot be classified as computer terminals. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the  Commissioner of  CommercialTaxes, the appellant company is before the High Court in this appeal filed under Section 24(1) of the KST Act. 

 Issue before the court 

 Is ATM a computer and whether it would fall under Entry 20(i) of Part 'C of Second Schedule to the Act?

Submissions before the High Court 

The main submission before the authority by Diebold systems was that ATM is a combination of a computer and it runs on a processor and the purpose for which it is put to use is to dispense with cash to people and therefore, had requested theAuthority to classify ATM's as goods falling under Entry 20 of Part'C' of the Second Schedule to the Act which consists of a list of entries with main head Computers of all kinds and peripherals and not Electronic goods falling under Entry 4 of Part 'E' of Second Schedule to the Act.

While the contention of Commissioner of Commercial Tax was that an ATM  is not a computer by itself. It is connected to a computer that performs the tasks requested by the person using the ATM. The computer is connected electronically to many ATM's that may be located some distance from the computer.

Judgement

ATM is the acronym for Automated Teller Machine. this machine has a data terminal with two inputs and four output devices. The ATM connects to and communicates with a host processor that is analogous to an Internet Service provider. Then as a  way of supporting the Machine to the host processor, dial-up or leased lines are used. With the dial-up, the Machine would dial into the host processor, using a standard telephone line and modem. With the leased line. The machine is connected through the host processor through what is called a four-wire, point to point, dedicated telephone line. The ATM does not have many parts; there is a card reader, which is what captures a person's account information that is stored on the magnetic strip located on the back of the ATM/debit card. This information is actually used by the host processor in routing the transaction to the appropriate bank. Then it has a 'Keypad', which is used by the cardholder to tell the machine what type of transaction is needed. It has an 'electric eye' that is used for the cash dispensing mechanism. In addition to the eye, the ATM has a 'sensor that is capable of evaluating the thickness of each of the bills being dispensed.

Coming to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, it is clear that the Act is a taxing statute and the Schedule to an Act is very much part of fiscal enactment. It is enacted by the hand of the Legislature. The Schedule in an Act sets down things and objects and contains their names and descriptions. The expressions in the Schedule have no evocative function. They can neither enlarge nor cut down the meanings or articles or things specifically named in the list. Therefore, the enlarged definition of "computers" in the Information Technology Act cannot be made use of interpreting an Entry under fiscal legislation.

 An Automatic Teller Machine is an electronic device, which allows a bank's customer to make cash withdrawals, and check their account balances at any time without the need of human teller. ATM is not a computer by itself and it is connected to a computer that performs the tasks requested by the person using ATMs. The computer is connected electronically to many ATM's that may be located from some distance from the computer. As a result, the appeal fails, and accordingly, it is rejected.


 Full Judgement available at- https://bit.ly/3dnpPnf

 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Laws regarding blocking of Websites and Apps in India

Recent order in India has banned 59 Chinese apps including TikTok, Shareit, Mi Video, and UC Browser amid tension between two countries. The country’s IT ministry invoked Section 69A of the IT Act 2000 that lets the government block services if they’re deemed dangerous for sovereignty and integrity of the country. So in this article let's understand the Laws regarding Blocking of Websites and Apps in India  Laws Regarding the Blocking of websites and Apps in India In India, there are various laws that regulate the working of Websites and Apps. These laws are meant to govern the content of websites in order to maintain peace and morality among citizens. The Information Technology Act 2000 is the law that primarily deals with cyberspace in India. The laws that lay down the provisions for blocking of websites are 1) Information Technology Act 2000(Section 69) & Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. ...

Relation of Partners with one Another :- Rights and Duties of Partners in a Partnership Firm

Introduction Partnership firms in India are governed by the Indian Partnership Act 1932. Partnership is a special kind of Contract. Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the term "Partnership" as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into a partnership with one another are called individually as, “partners” and collectively “a firm”, and the name under which their business is carried on is called the “firm name”. Relation of Partners with One Another  The mutual relations between the partners of a firm come into existence through an agreement between all the said partners. Partners can determine their mutual rights and duties by a contract called partnership deed, which largely determines the aspects of general administration, such as which partner will do what work, what will be their share in profits, etc. The partnership deed may be varie...