IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Ms Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department - Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 119, 121, 122, 123 of 2020
Decided On : 06-10-2023
Namkeen - Classification of 'Kurkure' and 'Cheetos' - Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Section 84 - [Entry 131 of Schedule IV, Schedule V] - The court analyzed the classification of 'Kurkure' and 'Cheetos' under Entry 131 of Schedule IV and the residual entry of Schedule V of the RVAT Act. The court highlighted the legal principles of specific entry overriding general entry, the burden of proof on the Revenue, and the need for an independent analysis of relevant entries under the RVAT Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-assessee challenged the classification of 'Kurkure' and 'Cheetos' by the Revenue under the residual entry of Schedule V to the RVAT Act, contending that the goods should be classified as 'namkeen' under Entry 131 of Schedule IV.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tax Board misinterpreted the previous judgment and failed to establish that the goods in question should fall under the general/residual entry. The court also noted that the goods were classified as namkeen by the FSSAI and previous court judgments.
Issues: The issues involved the classification of 'Kurkure' and 'Cheetos' as 'namkeen' under Entry 131 of Schedule IV or as 'snacks' under the residual entry of Schedule V of the RVAT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof and misinterpreted the previous judgment. It emphasized the need for an independent analysis of relevant entries and the classification of the goods as namkeen by the FSSAI and previous court judgments.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Sales Tax Revisions, quashed the orders of the Tax Board and the authorities below, and ruled in favor of the petitioner-assessee.
ORDER :
1. The present Sales Tax Revisions / References (for short “STRs”), filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short “RVAT Act”), were admitted on following questions of law:
(ii) Whether the learned Tax Board is right in adopting a restricted meaning for the term “namkeen” in interpreting the scope of Entry 131 of the Schedule IV?”
2. As common issue of classification of ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ is involved in all these STRs, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and are now being decided by way of this common order. STR No. 119/2020 is taken as lead file to peruse the facts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee submits that the petitioner-assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956 having registered office at Gurugram, Haryana (formerly known as ‘Gurgaon’) and having its principal place of business in the State of Rajasthan at Jaipur. The petitioner-assessee is also a registered dealer under the RVAT Act and is engaged in the sale of various food products, including the goods in question, i.e. ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’. The petitioner-assessee is also engaged in the sale of branded potato chips, which are sold under the brand name of ‘Lays’ and ‘Uncle Chips’. The petitioner-assessee was self classifying the goods in question along with the branded potato chips under Entry 131 [Sweetmeat Deshi (including Gajak & Revri), bhujiya, branded and unbranded namkeens.] of Schedule IV to the RVAT Act and paying tax @ 4% / 5%. A survey was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner-assessee for the assessment year 2011-2012, which ultimately resulted into passing of the impugned Assessment Order dated 20.09.2016, wherein the Revenue classified the goods in question along with the branded potato chips under the Residual Entry under Schedule V to the RVAT Act attracting tax @ 12.5% / 14%. Accordingly, the differential tax and interest was imposed upon the petitioner assessee vide assessment order dated 20.09.2016. The appeal against the said assessment order was partly allowed by the first Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.11.2017, to the extent of classification of branded potato chips being covered under Entry 107 of Schedule IV to the RVAT Act. Therefore, the differential tax and interest qua the branded potato chips was deleted but the classification of ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ under the residual entry of Schedule V to the RVAT Act was maintained. The Rajasthan Tax Board also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee vide order dated 03.01.2020 and maintained the levy of additional tax and interest by classifying ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ under the residual Entry No. 78 of Schedule V to the RVAT Act. Being aggrieved, the present STRs were filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has challenged the classification adopted by the Revenue, of the goods in question under residual entry, primarily, on the following grounds:
Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, Gujarat
Collector of Central Excise vs. Fusebase Eltoto Ltd.
Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Krishna Carbon Paper Co.
Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (Neutral Citation
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. vs. A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd.
Commnr. of Central Excise, Bhopal vs. Minwool Rock Fibers Ltd.
Dunlop India Ltd. vs. Union of India
Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta
Indian Cable Company Ltd., Calcutta vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Ors.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Ors. vs. Ved Ram
Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Muller and Phipps (India) Ltd. vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I
Parle Agro (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum and Ors.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex., Chandigarh-II
Ramavatar Budhaiprasad and Ors. vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola
State of Maharashtra vs. Bradma of India Ltd.
Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific entry overrides the general entry, and the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish the classification of goods under t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'common parlance test' and the commercial understanding of terms in tax provisions to determine the classification of goods ....
The burden of proof on the revenue to justify classification, the principles of specific entry overriding general entry, and the importance of supporting evidence in classification matters.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.