SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 1026

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, RAJIV ROY
Marico Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal (in both)
For the Respondents: Mr. P. K. Shahi, AG (in both).

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – Two appeals from the common order dated 11.03.2005 of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in a Miscellaneous Case and Revision Case, agitate the same issue. The appellant, a dealer under the provisions of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘Act of 2005’) approached the authority under Section 77 for a ruling as to whether coconut oil, sold by it, would be taxed at the rate of 12.5% as a residuary item or at the rate of 4% as a commodity coming within Schedule-III.

2. The assessment year is 2005-06; the year in which the Value Added Tax regime was enforced in the State of Bihar, as in the other states. Initially, Entry 27 of Schedule-III contained edible oil and oil cakes which, by a notification dated 09.07.2005 was amended to read as “edible oils (other than coconut oil) or oil cakes.” Hence, up to 09.07.2005, the commodity was an edible oil liable to a lesser rate of tax as provided for Schedule-III goods. Even after the amendment of 09.07.2005, coconut oil would be taxable at the rate of 4% being a vegetable oil, which was included under Entry 82, which entry was substituted out by notification dated 01.04.2006, is the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top