The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the specific entries of the Third Schedule and the authority of the State Government to issue notifications under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act, which influenced the court's decision to uphold the Commissioner's classification under the residuary Entry 103 of SRO 82/2006.

Ramachandran Nair,J.

This is an appeal filed under Section 62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter called the "Act" against Annexure 5 order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 94 of the Act, clarifying rate of tax on the products distributed by the appellant by name "Ujala Supreme" and "Ujala Stiff and Shine". The products are manufactured by M/s. Jyothy Laboratories, and appellant is the wholesale distributor of the products in Kerala. While Ujala Supreme is a fabric whitener, Ujala Stiff and Shine is a liquid fabric stiffner. The product samples produced by the appellant in bottles contain the description of the products as follows:

Ujala Supreme: Fabric Whitener- For Supreme Whiteness of Clothes.

Ujala Stiff and Shine: Liquid Fabric Whitener For Crisp & Shining Clothes.

When the appellant applied for clarification before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the rate of tax applicable to the above two products, the Commissioner clarified that both the products would fall under Entry 27 of Notification, SRO 82/2006 dated 21.1.2006 issued under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act, which is as follows:

27. Detergents whether cake, liquid or powder, toilet soap, washing soap, laundry brighteners, abir, blue, stain busters, stain removers and all kinds of cleaning powder and liquids including floor and toilet cleaning.

(emphasis supplied)

Essentially the finding of the Commissioner was that since the items were used for imparting brightness and stiffness to clothes, those are laundry brighteners falling under Entry 27 above stated. However, appellant filed appeal before this Court contending that Ujala Supreme is an item falling under Entry 155(8)(d) of the Third Schedule to the Act, which provides for "Acid Violets" with HSN Code No. 3204.12.94 and Ujala Stiff and Shine falls under Entry 118(5) with HSN Code No. 3905 which provides for "polymers of vinyl acetate or of other vinyl esters, in primary forms; other vinyl polymers in primary forms". Several documents including test reports, decisions of the Central Excise Tribunal, etc., were produced to substantiate the contention of the appellant that the products are covered by the two entries of Third Schedule stated above. This Court after hearing parties, vide judgment in OTA No. 13 of 2006 set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Commissioner after considering all the materials furnished by the appellant and after hearing them issued Annexure 5 order again clarifying that both the items do not fall under the above stated entries in the Third Schedule and instead the items would fall under residuary Entry 103 of SRO 82/2006 taxable at the rate of 12.5 per cent. The only deviation made in Annexure 5 order from the earlier order of the Commissioner is that though he found that laundry brighteners are among the items covered by the heading of Entry 27 in Notification SRO 82/2006, no such item is provided in any of the sub-headings with HSN code No. The Commissioner therefore held that both the items fall under the residuary Entry 103 of SRO 82/2006 which provides for rate of tax on items not covered by any of the entries in the list provided in the notification or by any Entry of any of the Schedules to the Act. Accordingly appellant's claim that the items fall under the two entries of Third Schedule referred above was turned down by the Commissioner. It is against this order the appellant has filed this appeal. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. As already stated, Ujala Supreme is a product in liquid form sold in bottles for use as a fabric whitener. Appellant's main contention is that notification, namely, SRO 82/2006 issued under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act cannot cover any goods specifically covered by Second or Third Schedule to the Act, which attracts tax at the rate provided