Gujarat High Court
Godrej Consumer Product Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 24 August, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/SCA/12172/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12172 of 2018
==========================================================
GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCT LTD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 24/08/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The petitioner has challenged the assessment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, Ahmedabad. Issue pertains to the product manufactured by the petitioner called "Godrej Nupur Mehndi". The petitioner contends that the product should be assessed as Heena Powder Mehndi which product is exempted from tax. That the Assessing Officer has treated the product falling in residuary category and levied tax accordingly.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for this very product the distributor of the Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/12172/2018 ORDER petitioner company had applied to the Commissioner for determination under Section 80 of the Gujarat Value Aided Tax Act. The commissioner had passed an order on 31.12.2013 accepting the stand of the distributor that the product in question is Mehndi. In such order he had referred to relied upon another order of determination dated 14.10.2013 in case of M/s. Kajal Dulhan Mehndi Center, in which an order of determination under Section 80 of the Act was passed holding that mehndi power and mehndi cone (paste) are heena powder (mehndi).
3. The Assessing Officer ignored such orders, particularly the order dated 31.12.2013 in case of M/s. J.K.Sales, the distributor of the petitioner company which order related to this very product in question. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer observed that such order of determination under Section 80 is limited to the representation made before the authority in such proceedings. In his opinion the product in question was predominantly used as hair colour.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once for the same product determination order Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/12172/2018 ORDER was passed by the Commissioner, it was not open for the Assessing Officer to take a view different from the order of determination. He relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of West Coast Waterbase Private Limited & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2016) 95 VST 370 (Guj.) and of Bombay High Court in the case of Kulko Engineering Works Ltd., vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 46 Sales Tax Cases
454.
5. Notice returnable on 14.9.2018. The respondent shall not carry out coercive recovery pursuant to the impugned order of assessment.
(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 3 of 3