Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 431 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification - Whether pure coconut oil which is manufactured by the revisionist is taxable at 4% under entry 43 or entry 131 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - whether Revive Instant Starch, which is also manufactured by the revisionist and which contains 90% tapioca starch and about 3% of other additives is liable to be charged to tax under Entry 118 of Schedule II Part A of VAT Act, 2008 or was liable to be treated as an unclassified item chargeable to tax at 12.5%. - Held that:- Tribunal having accepted that the findings recorded by the authorities below that pure edible coconut oil should be identified by its common parlance association with hair oil was not a sound finding and the appellate authority should have determined as to whether it fell within Entry 43 or Entry 131 of Schedule II, Part A is no doubt a correct finding but having said that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal, since the matter was before it and also within its competence, to have itself recorded a clear and unambiguous finding as to whether pure coconut oil (edible) fell within Entry 43 or Entry 131 or both for the purposes of tax. The Tribunal has in any case not accepted the finding of the appellate authority or the assessing officer that edible coconut oil should be treated as an unclassified item taxable at 12.5%. - Entry 43 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 mentions edible oil and oil cake therefore if Parachute pure coconut oil which is marked as "edible" on its packaging cannot be labeled as hair oil and therefore an unclassified item liable to tax at 12.5% it must necessarily be classified as edible oil under Entry no. 43 of Schedule II Part A and therefore, in my opinion would be liable to tax at 4% and not as an unclassified item taxable at 12.5%. Word Starch as used in Entry 118 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 has neither been referred to as edible or inedible and therefore Revive Starch must be held to be falling within the meaning of word Starch as used in Entry 118. If it had been the intention of the Legislature to distinguish between edible and inedible Starch, the Entry 118 itself would have explicitly said so and therefore when the Legislature itself is silent a meaning or interpretation to a word used in the statute must not be given which the Legislature itself did not intend and did not say in so many words. - order of the Tribunal dated 28.3.2011 is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
|