Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 668 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - Sharbat Rooh Afza - U.P. VAT Act - common parlance test - 'essential character' test - Whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in passing the impugned order classifying the product "Rooh Afza" under the residuary entry (Entry 1 of Schedule V) and not under the Entry 103 of Part A of Schedule II of the U.P. VAT Act? Held that:- The application of common parlance test is an extension of general principles of interpretation of Statute for deciphering the mind of the law-maker. In the absence of a statutory definition in precise term; words, entries and items in physical Statute must be construed in terms of their commercial or trade understanding or according to their popular meaning. In other words they have to be constructed in the sense that the people conversant with the subject matter of the Statute would attribute to it. Resort to rigid interpretation in terms of artificial and technical meaning should be avoided in such circumstances - the Tribunal has neither committed any error of law to apply common parlance test nor committed any error to record the findings of fact that "Sharbat Rooh Afza" is not a fruit drink. It is evident that the commodity in question i.e. "Sharbat Rooh Afza" is neither a fruit drink nor a fruit juice nor a processed fruit rather it is a "Non Fruit Syrup/Sharabat" being a concentrated sugar syrup which is not specified in Schedule-I, II, III & IV of the Act. Therefore, it is an unclassified item falling under the residuary entry of Schedule-V of the Act - Since the commodity "Sharbat Rooh Afza" does not fall under any Entry in Schedule I, II, III and IV, therefore, it shall fall under the residuary entry in Schedule-V of the Act. Revision dismissed - decided against revisionist.
|