2009 (12) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... him challenging entry 17A in Part C of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, specifying the "coconut oil sold under the brand name" inserting the same with effect from April 1, 2001 and to quash the insertion of the words "coconut oil sold under the brand name" in entry 1 of Part E of the Second Schedule to the KST Act, with effect from April 1, 2001. The respondent-assessee is a dealer and selling coconut oil apart from dealing with the other products. Prior to the amendment, coconut oil sold by him in sachets or in bottles with a brand name was attracting sales tax at four per cent in Sl. No. 1 of Part E of the Second Schedule to the KST Act. On account of the amendment, coconut oil sold would attract the higher rate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mits that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants has to be rejected on the ground that coconut oil is either manufactured and sold in a brand name or not, it has to be used only as coconut oil and there is a difference between hair oil and coconut oil. Whenever hair oil is sold by a manufacturer, in addition to the coconut oil some other ingredients would also be there. In such circumstances it can be treated as an ordinary coconut oil in the ordinary sense. Therefore, the distinction between the hair oil and the coconut oil has not been properly appreciated by the Legislature for bringing any amendment. Therefore, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. In order to ascertain the actual contents of the coconut oil so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nnot be sold without a brand name, it would be difficult for us to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate to say that any coconut oil sold under a brand name either in sachet or bottle has to be treated as a toilet article. We refuse to accept the arguments of the Government Advocate to treat the coconut oil sold in a brand name either in sachet or bottle as a toilet article. By looking into the ingredients of the coconut oil sold by two different companies, it is clear it is only a pure coconut oil and neither meant as edible oil nor as hair oil. But the bottle produced by the respondentassessee of Parachute company has got two brand names, one is sold as a pure coconut oil and another is a coconut hair oil. The i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X