Punjab & Haryana High Court Disposes Sony India Plea Against 2006 VAT Entry Substitution

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of a plea filed by Sony India Private Limited concerning its claim for a concessional VAT rate of 4% on Digital Still Image Cameras, holding that the company was not prejudiced by the notification it had challenged.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor observed that the expression “IT Products”, which formed the basis of Sony's claim for the concessional rate, continued to remain part of Entry No. 60 even after its amendment.

Sony, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation, Japan, imports various goods into India and distributes them in the northern region from its Hub Warehouse in Greater Noida. Its products include Digital Still Image Cameras (DSC).

Entry No. 60 of Schedule-B to the Punjab VAT Act was relied upon by Sony for claiming the concessional 4% VAT rate on “IT products”.

The entry covered “IT products," including computers, telephones, cell phones, Digital Video Discs, Compact Discs, teleprinters and wireless equipment and parts thereof.

Sony claimed that its Digital Still Image Cameras fell within the broader expression “IT Products” in the entry and were therefore eligible for the concessional rate.

The Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh subsequently issued a notification dated June 27, 2006, substituting Entry No. 60 with a more detailed entry listing various specified information technology products and their corresponding headings.

Sony challenged the notification, contending that the Administrator did not have jurisdiction to issue it under the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Punjab VAT Act. It also argued that the original Entry No. 60 should continue to apply to its Digital Still Image Cameras.

The Revenue submitted that the amendment caused no prejudice to Sony because the company's claim was based on the expression “IT Products," which remained common to both the original and amended entries.

The High Court accepted this objection. It observed that both the original and amended Entry No. 60 covered “IT Products”, while the goods specifically enumerated in the entries were illustrative of the broader expression.

The Court noted that Sony's claim was based only on its assertion that Digital Still Image Cameras formed part of the expression “IT Products”.

Since that expression appeared in both versions of Entry No. 60, the Court held that Sony was not prejudiced by the June 27, 2006 notification.

The Court consequently held that the challenge to the notification was academic in importance and did not require examination.

The bench also disposed of three connected petitions challenging assessment orders. It held that Sony could challenge those orders by filing appeals in accordance with law, leaving all questions open for consideration in the appeals.

The Court further directed that if such appeals were filed within 30 days from September 2, 2026, they would be entertained without any objection regarding limitation.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nikhil Nayyar, with Advocates Rajat Khanna, Divyanshu Rai & Vishal Saini

For Respondent: Sumeet Jain, Addl. Standing Counsel with Sachit Singla, Standing Counsel UT Chandigarh