Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 977 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of order u/s 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Whether the fryums can be treated as pappad which falls under entry 40 of the First Schedule to the KVAT Act Held that:- The records clearly disclose that the assessee in STRP Nos. 6 and 29-63 and STRP Nos. 73 and 170-192 of 2011 are the dealers in the commodity in question known as fryums - The respondent in STRP No. 89 of 2009 is the manufacturer and dealer of the food articles popularly known as fryums - The commodity manufactured by the assessee was taxed at two per cent as pappad under the KST and CST Acts - after coming into force of the KVAT Act, the pappad was brought under entry No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Act - only consumables are sought to be included in the term 'cooked food' in Commissioner of Commercial Tax Indore and others Versus TTK. Health Care Ltd. [2007 (4) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it has been held that in the case of 'fryums' there is no dispute that the dough/base is a semi-food - There is also no doubt that in the case of 'fryums' a further cooking process was required - the 'fryums' came in plastic bags - These 'fryums' were required to be fried depending on the taste of the consumer - 'fryums' were like seviyan - 'Fryums' were required to be fried in edible oil - That oil had to be heated - There was certain process required to be applied before 'fryums' become consumable - the item 'fryums' will not fall within the term 'cooked food' under item 2, Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Act - It will fall under the residuary item 'all other goods not included in any part of Schedule I'. The honourable Supreme Court has not declared that the fryums are not the pappad it has been clearly held that the shape of the pappad is not a relevant consideration when the ingredients are the same - there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal - The petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Decided against petitioner.
|