Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On the other hand, it is the case of the revenue that the sole issue, in the present case, is whether the products sold by the petitioners are insecticides and pesticides falling under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act or are unclassified goods chargeable to tax at the rate fixed in Schedule V; as the subject goods are not insecticides in terms of manufacturing, presentation, packaging, ingredients, marketing, name etc, they cannot be treated as insecticides falling under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act; and there is an underlying difference between household insecticides manufactured by the petitioners, and the insecticide/pesticide referred to in Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act.

Entry 100 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 stipulates that the following goods, when sold as industrial inputs, shall be subject to tax of 4%/5%. Sub-Entry 140 of Entry 100 reads thus:

Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and pesticides of technical grade.

III. ARE THE SUBJECT GOODS INSECTICIDES/PESTICIDES FALLING UNDER ENTRY 20 OF THE IV SCHEDULE:

It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the subject goods are intended to kill flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rats, etc; they are classifiable as insecticides/pesticides under Entry 20 of Schedule IV to the Act; if mosquito repellants were classifiable under the expression insecticides (prior to its amendment), there is no reason why the subject goods are not classifiable as insecticides under the VAT Act; the decision of the Commercial Tax Department, to classify the subject goods under the residuary entry, runs counter to the decision of this Court in Godrej Hicare Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Hyderabad ; the subject goods are preparations of chemicals designed to kill insects and pests; such products can only be classified as insecticides and/or pesticides; any preparation, containing any substance specified in the Schedule to the 1968 Act, is an insecticide; HIT CIK contains D-trans Allethrin which is an insecticide; HIT FIK contains imiprothrin and cypermethrin which are insecticides; HIT Chalk contains cypermethrin which is an insecticide; HIT Rat cake contains bromadialone which is a rodenticide; rat is a pest and thus HIT Rat is a pesticide; HIT Anti Roach-Gel contains fipronil which is an insecticide; the subject goods are insecticides within the meaning of the term insecticide as defined in the Insecticides Act, 1968; insecticide is a generic product having wide varieties, among which mosquito repellants stand excluded under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the Act; it is evident, therefore, that the rest of the varieties of household insecticides have been included under the genus of insecticides; since the subject goods are insect killers, they have been rightly classified under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the Act; the extent or quantity of active ingredients used in the goods is not a relevant factor for the purpose of classification; as held by the Supreme Court in Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd.7, and CCE v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd1, minimal use of an active ingredient in the subject goods does not detract from its being classified as an insecticide; the department has acknowledged, in the impugned order, that HIT Rat, specifically meant for rats, is a rodenticide; as the term rodenticide is not specified in Entry 20 of Schedule IV, the department has contended that the subject goods do not fall within its ambit; the department has artificially tried to create a difference without there being any distinction; the term pesticide is of wide import, and brings within its scope rodenticide also; and a rodent is nothing but a house-hold pest.

In State of Haryana v. Anil Pesticides Limited , the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that, where the disputes are highly technical in nature, and the court does not possess the requisite expertise to determine whether the items manufactured by the company are "chemicals" as alleged by it, or "pesticides" as claimed by the department, it has necessarily to depend on technical opinion in such matters.

The case on hand does not, however, present any such difficulty. The certificate issued to the petitioners is by the Central Insecticides Board, a body constituted under the Insecticides Act to regulate the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of insecticides. As noted hereinabove, the Insecticides Act brings all kinds of insecticides within its ambit with a view to ensure the safety of human beings and animals from the use of such insecticides. As a person who manufactures products, using any of the insecticides enumerated in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, is required to be registered under the 1968 Act, the subject products were certified by the Board as household insecticides. The Insecticides Act has itself made an exception of household insecticides, and has exempted it from the rigors of the Insecticides Act. The mere fact that it contains a very small portion of insecticides, would not make the subject products pesticides and insecticides falling within the ambit of Entry 20.

should be treated as "insecticides" till January 1, 2000.

In Ashok Agencies35, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that it was not in dispute that Mosquito repellants contained the chemical Allethrin as one of its constituents; since Allethrin is a constituent chemical in Mosquito repellants, it comes within the definition of insecticide which also finds place in Entry 23 of the III Schedule annexed to KVAT Act without any further qualification as to its kind; whether an insecticide is used in agricultural operations for the purpose of killing insects that attack agricultural crops, or it is used for killing domestic insects, the fact remains that all kinds of insecticides fall within Entry 23 of the III Schedule annexed to the Karnataka VAT Act; and therefore mosquito repellant, being insecticide, fell within Entry 23 of the said Schedule.