2022 (8) TMI 99 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Classification of goods - toffee - to be covered under the Entry No. 137 Schedule II Part A and liable to tax @ 4% as against the claim of the revenue that the said commodity was taxable as an unclassified commodity @ 12.5%? - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has specifically found, the assessee had purchased 'toffee' from M/s Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Ghaziabad. Then, as to the sugar content, relying on an order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, under Section 59 of the Act, it was held any commodity having sugar content more than 70% would qualify as a sugar product under Entry No. 137 Schedule II Part A of the Act. An issue was involved pertaining to classification of two products i.e. 'Chlormint with Herbasol' and 'Happydent White'. The revenue challenged the said order of the Tribunal in THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. LUCKNOW VERSUS PERFATY WANMELE INDIA PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 1816 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Initially, it did not raise any challenge to the finding pertaining to taxability of 'toffees'. It confined the revision to classification of 'Chlormint with Herbasol' and 'Happydent White' - it is difficult to accept this conduct of the State to now challenge the rate of tax on 'toffee' in the case of the present dealer, who is an agent of the manufacturer - M/s Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. The commodity being the same and the assessee being not the manufacture, a different view may never arise - one for the manufacturer and the other for the trader. Adjudication having been made once and the revenue with open eyes having not pressed the issue of taxability of 'toffees' beyond the level of Tribunal , though it carried the remaining dispute arising from the same order up to the Supreme Court, it cannot be permitted to adopt dual standards while dealing with the case of a trader. One commodity may be taxed at one rate, at the same point in time. Revenue has no discretion in the matter. No material has been shown to exist that may warrant a different view to be taken either on facts law - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of tax rate on the commodity 'toffee' under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
2. Validity of the decision regarding the classification of 'toffees' based on sugar content.
3. Consistency in tax treatment between the manufacturer and the trader of the same commodity.

Issue 1: The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the tax rate applicable to 'toffees' under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Commercial Tax Tribunal had classified 'toffees' as per Entry No. 137 Schedule II Part A, subjecting them to a 4% tax rate, contrary to the revenue's claim of a 12.5% tax rate for unclassified commodities. The Tribunal's decision was based on the sugar content criteria set by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, which was accepted by the revenue authorities as final.

Issue 2: The judgment also addressed the validity of the classification of 'toffees' based on their sugar content. Previous cases involving 'toffees' from different distributors were cited, where the sugar content was found to be more than 90%, leading to classification as sugar products. The Tribunal's orders were upheld in these cases, emphasizing the importance of chemical analysis to determine sugar content accurately for classification purposes.

Issue 3: The judgment highlighted the need for consistency in tax treatment between the manufacturer and the trader of the same commodity. It was noted that the revenue authorities had not challenged the tax rate on 'toffees' in the case of the manufacturer, which had attained finality through court orders. Therefore, it was deemed inappropriate for the State to challenge the tax rate on 'toffees' for the trader, who was an agent of the manufacturer, as the commodity and its classification remained the same.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the revision, citing the lack of merit and delay. It emphasized the importance of adhering to established classifications based on sugar content for 'toffees' and maintaining consistency in tax treatment for the same commodity across different entities. The decision underscored the binding effect of previous orders and the need for uniformity in tax rates applied to identical commodities.