D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) A failed effort on the part of the Revenue to bring to tax coconut oil sold in branded form and in containers as a toilet article,. e. , as hair oil subject to tax under entry No. 10 of Part of the second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") at the rate of 15 per cent as against the rate of four per cent claimed by the very petitioner-assessee as an edible oil taxable at four per cent in entry No. 1 of Part "e" of the Second Schedule to the Act in which effort the Revenue failed in terms of the judgment of this court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Marico Industries Ltd, reported in [2001] 124 STC 196, has given rise to the present legislation by introduction of entry No. 17-A in Part "c" of the Second Schedule to the Act, with effect from April 1, 2001 by Act 5 of 2001 which is again challenged by the petitioner-dealer on the ground that the Legislature by introduction of this entry subjected coconut oil sold under a brand name to tax at a higher rate in comparison to other edible oils though sold under a brand name as under entry No. 1 of Part "e" of the Second Schedule to the Act has been discriminatory, viola

Click Here to Read the rest of this document