State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Balaji Food Products vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 6 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]121STC394(TRIBUNAL)
JUDGMENT
L. Palamalai, Administrative Member
1. This tax revision case is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai in T.A. No. 305 of 1991 dated March 26, 1992. The short point for decision in this case relates to the following two items :
(a) Soft drinks sold in pouches under a brand name assessed under entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on a turnover of Rs. 6,09,602 at 8 per cent.
(b) Supply of squash and fruit jam for a turnover of Rs. 1,64,859 assessed to tax at 10 per cent on the basis of enhanced rate of tax allowed in first appeal.
2. Mr. K. Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the assessee has not sold soft drink in bottles but only in pouches and in such circumstances, entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Act is not attracted. As regards supply of fruits and jams, it is only a labour work and therefore there is no sales turnover.
3. Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Government Advocate, supported the decision of the Appellate Tribunal.
4. We have considered the contentions carefully and perused the records. We find that entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 reads as follows :
"Aerated waters and bottled soft drinks sold under a brand name........."
Accordingly, the verb "bottled" used here means the soft drink confined as if in a bottle. Therefore when soft drink is confined in pouches, it has to be construed as only sale of bottled soft drink. Therefore the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in classifying the soft drink sold in pouches as bottled soft drink so as to levy tax at 8 per cent under entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Act is in order. As regards the supply of squash and fruit jam, we find from the order of the assessing authority that the order given by A.F. Nappolin and Co. (P)Ltd., is for the manufacture and supply of mixed fruit jam, apple jam, etc. The assessee supplied fruit jam but prepared separate bills for the materials consumed in the preparation of jams and squashes and separate bills for labour charges. In such circumstances, the assessment made by treating the transactions as sale of quashes and fruit jam is quite in order. As regards levy of tax, though the assessing authority levied tax at 5 per cent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of enhancement petition levied tax at 10 per cent by classifying the goods under entry 103 of the First Schedule to the Act which relates to foods including preparation of vegetables, fruits, etc., and sold under a brand name. Thus, we find that the classification made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also is proper and there is no case to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the tax revision case is dismissed.
And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 6th day of July 2000.