Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Brief Facts:

The appellant, proprietrix of a trading concern, having failed in her first essay to successfully assail the orders of assessment for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 27.03.2014 in W.P.(C) No.3850/2014.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent, trading in margarine and other bakery shortenings. On 25.11.2013, the third respondent issued a notice to the appellant under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the KVAT Act' for brevity) proposing to levy tax on the sales turnover of 'Margarine' for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-

14. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has, with equal vehemence, opposed the claims and contentions of the appellant. Since the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance on Aluva Sugar Agency's case (supra), the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the Apex Court rendered the judgment with reference to the provisions of the KGST Act. In elaboration thereof, he has submitted that the provisions of the KVAT Act are distinct and different from those of KGST Act. According to him, the "HSN Code" given under the Customs Tariff Act has also not fallen for consideration in that judgment. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there is no inconsistency between SSD Oil Mills's case (supra) rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court and Aluva Sugar Agency's case (supra) rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Aluva Sugar Agency, SSD Oil Mills & the Present Case:

36. In the light of the above discussion on the principle of precedent or stare decisis, if we examine the statutory scheme governing the issue in Aluva Sugar Agency in contradistinction with the present case, it is evident that the Apex Court rendered the judgment in the former case while interpreting the provisions of the KGST Act, whereas in the latter, it is the provisions of the KVAT Act and Customs Tariff Act, that fall for consideration. Essentially, in the former case, the Rules of Interpretation of Schedules have not been invoked. In the face of the ratio in Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works (infra), the whole issue shows itself in a different light.

Notified List of Goods Taxable:

59. Another contention of the appellant is that the item falls under Entry 38 (19)(d) of the III Schedule to the KVAT Act. This contention stood rejected in SSD Oil Mills on the ground that none of the items covered by the sub- entry (19) has the same HSN Code for margarine provided in the customs tariff. In fact, it is clear from Entry 38(19) that all four items referred to there are covered under six digit HSN Code 1516.20. The other contention is that margarine referred to in Entry 64(8) of S.R.O.No.82/06 is only margarine made with one of the milk products as an ingredient. This contention too stood answered in SSD Oil Mills. The learned Division Bench has observed that none of the items covered by HSN Code 1517 of the Customs Tariff Act, which covers margarine, is included under Entry 38 of the III Schedule to the KVAT Act. It is, therefore, concluded that the Legislature never intended margarine to be covered along with oils under the III Schedule. On the other hand, margarine in all its forms is covered by Entry 64(8) of the III Schedule to the KVAT Act, which has the same HSN Code for margarine contained in the Customs Tariff Act. We are in respectful agreement with the learned Division Bench on that count.