2016 (12) TMI 959 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Classification of product - interpretation of statute - Whether the product of the petitioner as vegetable fat spread can be said as included in Entry No.32 of the III Schedule or not? Held that - If the market parlance test is considered, we do find that the product as vegetable fat spread is having separate marketability and different use hence cannot be said as same as that of the edible oil - Hence, we find that applying the market parlance test, the product of the petitioner-appellant cannot be considered as falling under Entry No.31. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is further considered to trace the composition of product then also as stated by the appellant himself the product contains 80% of edible oil - In addition thereto the product also contains starch, not less than 10 ppm and not more than 150 ppm, as per the standard prescribed by Food Safety and Standard Authorities of the Ministry of Family Welfare. Therefore, it is not that the product of the appellant contains only vegetable oil. When the product contains addition of starch and other items may be in the residuary 20% in contradiction to 80% being the vegetable oil and of her edible oils, then also it is difficult to conclude that the product of the appellant can be termed as only of edible oil - The aforesaid coupled with the aspects that the meaning of any Entry is to be considered it is to be read in comparison and in contradiction to other entries in the very schedule. As recorded by us hereinabove for certain type of oils which are also used as edible oils separate entries are provided and for certain types of concentrates of the milk used as spreader (cottage cheese) separate entries are provided. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the second test of composition of the product even if applied with the product of the appellant in comparison to the contents of the edible oils or in comparison with the product of edible oil commodity would meet with the test so as to include the product under Entry No.31 of the Schedule. The view taken by the Advance Ruling Authority cannot be said to be erroneous - the Advance Ruling Authority clarified that the product is an unscheduled commodity and therefore, tax at the rate of 14.5% would be chargeable. The product of the appellant would fall in the category of unscheduled product as held by the Advance Ruling Authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "vegetable fat spread" under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Entry No. 31 of the Third Schedule to the product.
3. Determination of tax rate for the product.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "vegetable fat spread" under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act:
The primary issue revolves around whether the product "vegetable fat spread" falls under Entry No. 31 of the Third Schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), 2003, or if it should be classified as an unscheduled commodity. The Advance Ruling Authority had determined that the product does not fall under Entry No. 31 but rather in the residuary category.

2. Applicability of Entry No. 31 of the Third Schedule to the product:
The appellant argued that the product should be classified under Entry No. 31, which pertains to edible oils, as it is made primarily from edible oil. However, the Advance Ruling Authority and the Court observed that "vegetable fat spread" is a distinct product. The Authority noted that while edible oil is an ingredient, the product is not the same as edible oil. The product includes other ingredients such as starch, making it different in composition and usage from edible oils. The Court emphasized the market parlance test, which considers the product's identity in the market. Since "vegetable fat spread" is marketed and used differently from edible oils, it cannot be included under Entry No. 31.

3. Determination of tax rate for the product:
Given that the product does not fall under Entry No. 31, it is classified as an unscheduled commodity. Consequently, the tax rate applicable is 14.5%, as determined by the Advance Ruling Authority. The Court upheld this classification and tax rate, finding no error in the Authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the product "vegetable fat spread" does not fall under Entry No. 31 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act. It is classified as an unscheduled commodity, subject to a tax rate of 14.5%. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority. The Court's decision was based on the market parlance test and the product's composition, distinguishing it from edible oils. The decision of the Apex Court in a similar case was deemed inapplicable as it did not consider the market parlance test.