Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While considering set of eight appeals pertaining to whether or not sunglasses could be classified as spectacles, parts and components thereof for the purpose of taxability, the Division Bench of Lisa Gill* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., held that ‘spectacles’ is not a term broad enough to include ‘sunglasses’, therefore entailing taxation of sunglasses under the entry relatable to spectacles and not under the residual entry could not be correct.
Background
In November 2010, the Excise and Taxation Officer passed an order stating that sunglasses were not covered under Entry 110 of Schedule-B of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (‘Punjab VAT Act’) Act and would thus be taxable @ 12.5 per cent. The said order was challenged by the appellants, which was dismissed by the Tribunal in September 2012. Aggrieved by the same, they approached the High Court.
They contended that the item ‘sunglasses’ was covered under the definition of ‘spectacles’, hence should be taxable at the rate as applicable to spectacles under the Entry 110 of Schedule-B of the Punjab VAT Act and Entry 100-E of Schedule-C of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘Haryana VAT Act’). They further maintained that thus, sunglasses could not be taxed at the rate applicable to unclassified items under the residual entry.
Analysis and Decision
Regarding the appellant’s argument pertaining to ‘spectacles’ being a broad and a generic term inclusive of sunglasses irrespective of whether primary purpose was vision correction or vision protection, the Court held that it is a settled position that an entry in taxation matters may be either illustrative and an inclusive entry or a restrictive and exhaustive entry. The Court stated that Entry 110 of Schedule-B of the Punjab VAT Act was an exhaustive and restrictive one which called for no addition, substitution or reading of any other words into it.
Appellants had further contended that the word ‘Chashme’ being derived from the Persian word Cacsma, of Indo-Iranian origin, which because means sight should be included in the definition of spectacles. The Court held that the argument was devoid of any merit as there was nothing placed on record which could indicate that ‘sunglasses’ could be a part of the term ‘spectacles’ or that ‘Chasme’ or ‘Ainak’ would include sunglasses within their ambit.
Thus, the Court stated that sunglasses and spectacles were indeed different products it couldn’t be viewed that the term ‘spectacles’ was broad enough to include ‘sunglasses’ entailing its taxation under the entry relatable to spectacles and not under the residual entry.
The Court took into account the appellants’ contention that in certain areas, especially snow-clad terrains, it was impossible to venture out without proper sunglasses/goggles and held that stated that the said issue did not arise in the case at hand. Further, referring to another contention of appellants that photochromatic lens were an example of the blurred distinction between the terms in question, the Court stated that once such a ‘lens’ was for corrective vision, it would be admittedly exigible to tax as applicable to spectacles. Therefore, sunglasses were indeed a distinct commodity, which was not covered under Entry 110 of Schedule-B of the Punjab VAT Act and Entry 100-E of Schedule-C of the Haryana VAT Act.
Further, the Court noted the amendment brought about in the Punjab VAT Act in January 2011 proved the point that Sunglasses are not ‘spectacles’. . Hence, the classification of sunglasses as residuary item was correct because it did not fall under any specified Schedule, thus, exigible to tax at the rate of 12.50 per cent. The Court further stated that inclusion of sunglasses in said entries at a later stage would not buttress the case of appellants.
The Court disposed of the appeals and upheld the impugned orders.
[Himalaya Optical Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, VATAP No. 38 of 2013 (O&M), decided on 8-12-2025]
*Judgement authored by Justice Lisa Gill
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, Prakyat J.S. Advocate and Suresh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana and Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab