9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 388 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - Parachute Oil - Medikar - Revived Instant Starch - Entry 43 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of MAURI YEAST INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF UP. 2008 (4) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that The word Starch as used in Entry 118 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 has neither been referred to as edible or inedible and therefore Revive Starch must be held to be falling within the meaning of word Starch as used in Entry 118. If it had been the intention of the Legislature to distinguish between edible and inedible Starch, the Entry 118 itself would have explicitly said so and therefore when the Legislature itself is silent a meaning or interpretation to a word used in the statute must not be given which the Legislature itself did not intend and did not say in so many words. Further, the counsel for the revisionist has also fairly submitted that questions of law framed in the present revision have already been answered in the judgment dated 12.09.2014 2015 (3) TMI 431 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and therefore the questions framed in the instant revision would be squarely covered by the said judgment. Revision dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'Parachute Coconut Oil' 2. Classification of 'Medikar' 3. Classification of 'Revived Instant Starch' Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of 'Parachute Coconut Oil': The primary issue was whether 'Parachute Coconut Oil' should be classified under 'oil of all kinds' or 'hair oil'. The Tribunal had previously classified it under 'oil of all kinds', but the High Court in the case of M/s The Bombay Oil Industries (P) Limited vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, had already determined that 'Parachute Coconut Oil' should be taxed as 'hair oil'. The court reaffirmed that 'Parachute Coconut Oil', marketed as edible, should be classified as edible oil under Entry 43 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and taxed at 4%, not as an unclassified item taxable at 12.5%. 2. Classification of 'Medikar': The second issue was whether 'Medikar' should be classified as a medicine. The Tribunal had classified 'Medikar' as a medicine, and this classification was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which stated that 'Medikar', used for anti-lice treatment, is a drug due to its medicinal effect and cannot be classified as a shampoo. The court cited the label and composition of 'Medikar', emphasizing its use in treating lice infestation, which causes diseases, thereby affirming its classification as a medicament. 3. Classification of 'Revived Instant Starch': The final issue was whether 'Revived Instant Starch' should be classified under 'starch'. The Tribunal had classified it under 'starch', and this was supported by the court's previous judgment in TTR No. 153 of 2011. 'Revived Instant Starch' contains 97% tapioca starch and 3% other chemicals. The court held that the classification of starch in Entry 118 of Schedule II Part A does not distinguish between edible and non-edible starch. Therefore, 'Revived Instant Starch' falls under the category of 'starch' and should be taxed accordingly. The principle of ejusdem generis was rejected as it was not shown that Sago and Sabudana exist in inedible forms. Conclusion: The court concluded that the issues in question had already been settled by previous judgments of the High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. The questions of law framed in the present revision were answered in accordance with these judgments, leading to the dismissal of the trade tax revision.
|
