Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.47 seconds)

M/S.Foods vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2014

10. The Division Bench of this Court observed that use of Bakery Margarine was only for Bakery/Confectionary industries and W.P.(C)Nos. 13780, 16328 & 30086 OF 2013,& 1477, 1608, 3850, 3920 AND 4458 of 2014 17 that the manufacturers had specifically prohibited use of the item for any other purpose. It was also observed that, it was not directly consumable unlike 'Vanaspati' or such other edible oils; and further that , although hydrogenated oil or refined oil can also be used for Bakery or Confectionary industries, the reverse is not true, in so far as Margarine, exclusively made for use in Bakery or Confectionary industries, cannot be treated as 'Edible oil' and the same cannot be used for all purposes for which Edible oil is used. When a doubt was expressed, whether Margarine would come within the purview of 'Edible oils' to get concessional rate of tax , the position was explained by the Government, pointing out that it was applicable in respect of items such as Groundnut oil, Gingelly Oil and Vanaspati. A Division Bench of this Court gave a restrictive meaning to the above clarification, confining the same to the specified item and held that 'Margarine' was not similar to the said items and hence was exigible to higher rate of tax, having been included under Entry 90 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act [[2007] 8 VST 726(Kerala). (State of Kerala vs. Aluva Sugar Mills)]
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

M/S.Janatha Super Bazar vs The Assistant Commissioner on 13 October, 2010

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the basic issue is whether the commodity dealt with by the petitioner i.e. margarine is taxable @ 12.5% or 4% being an edible oil coming under the purview of entry of 38(18) of the III Schedule, which is to be taxed only @ 4%. The law declared to the contrary by this Court WPC.No.17916/2012 2 reported in State of Kerala v. Aluva Sugar Agency ( 2008 ( 8) VST 726 (Ker) holding that the said commodity is not an edible oil, was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court as per the decision reported in Aluva Sugar Agency v. State of Kerala ( 2011 (45) VST 1 (SC). This being the position, the challenge raised in respect of similar circumstances has already been dealt with by this Court, particularly, by a Division Bench vide Ext.P17 judgment dated 10/4/2012 in W.A.No.743/2012 directing the Appellate Authority to consider and finalise the appeal itself, to have a finality to the issue.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

M/S.Mkc Agencies vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 31 January, 2011

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the basic issue is, whether the commodity dealt with by the petitioner i.e. margarine is taxable @ 12.5% or 4% being an edible oil coming under the purview of entry of 38(18) of the III Schedule, which is to be taxed only @ 4%. The law declared to the contrary by this Court reported in State of Kerala v. Aluva Sugar Agency ( 2008 ( 8) VST 726 (Ker) that the said commodity is not an edible oil was subsequently reversed WPC.No.17917/2012 2 by the Supreme Court as per the decision reported in Aluva Sugar Agency v. State of Kerala ( 2011 (45) VST 1 (SC). This being the position, the challenge raised in respect of similar circumstances has already been dealt with by this Court, particularly, by a Division Bench by judgment dated 10/4/2012 in W.A.No.743/2012 directing the Appellate Authority to consider and finalise the appeal itself to have a finality in the issue.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document
1