Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (5) TMI 29 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1. Exemption from tax on 'bone meal' under KGST Act.
2. Classification of 'bone meal' under Entry 17 and Entry 57 of the KGST Act.
3. Discriminatory exclusion of 'bone meal' from organic manures.
4. Interpretation of 'organic manure' under Entry 17 of the Third Schedule.
5. Legal precedent regarding discriminatory taxation.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Kerala High Court addressed several issues related to the taxation of 'bone meal' under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act. The petitioners, manufacturers of 'bone meal,' claimed exemption from tax for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 under Entry 17 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act. However, tax was levied on them at 4% based on the classification of 'bone meal' under item No.57(V) of the first Schedule to the KGST Act. The petitioners challenged this classification as arbitrary and discriminatory, seeking to set aside the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2).

The court analyzed the relevant Entries of the KGST Act, specifically Entry 17 of the Third Schedule and Entry 57 of the First Schedule. Entry 17 included organic manure derived naturally from plants or animals, excluding those specifically mentioned in the First Schedule. The explanation clarified that organic manure must be produced or derived naturally without any mechanical or unnatural process. The court determined that 'bone meal' did not qualify as organic manure as it was produced through a mechanical process, not naturally from plants or animals, as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

The judgment referred to legal precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy case, emphasizing the need for a rational basis for discriminatory taxation within the same category of commodities. However, the court held that the principle did not apply in this case since 'bone meal' did not meet the criteria for organic manure. The court also cited cases like Marico Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and State of U.P. v. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. to support its decision on discriminatory taxation.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that other mechanically produced items were included in Entry 17 of the Third Schedule, emphasizing that only items produced or derived naturally could qualify. The judgment concluded by directing the petitioners to pay the tax due under the assessment orders within four weeks to avoid liability for interest, dismissing the writ petitions on the grounds that 'bone meal' did not meet the criteria for organic manure under the KGST Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates