March 20, 2026
DU LLBINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAWSemester 5

Case – Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner,ILR 2005

Diebold Systems Pvt Ltd

Observation & Judgement:
➢ To suit the purpose and object of the IT Act, Parliament has defined the expression,
“computer” by giving it a very wide meaning, At the same time, by using the expression,
“means” immediately after the words, “computers” the legislature makes it clear that the
definition is exhaustive and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression, than
what is included in the definition.
➢ The court took the view that ATM machines are not computers but are electronic devices
that will attract a higher duty of 12 per cent basic tax under Karnataka Sales Tax Act,

  1. The court took the view that ATM is not a computer itself though it may be
    connected with computers and a wide definition of a computer as defined in IT Act, 2000
    is inapplicable while interpreting a tax law such as Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. In my
    view, ATM is itself a ‘computer’ and definition of a computer in the IT Act, 2000 should
    apply with equal force while interpreting a tax statute.

Related posts

Doctrine of Estoppel Section 115 indian Evidence Act Answer writing

Tabassum Jahan

Rajkot muncipal corporation V Manjulben jayantilal Nakum & orss 1997 ( 9) ACC 552

Dharamvir S Bainda

The Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.(1976) 3 SCC 819

vikash Kumar

Leave a Comment