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 1767 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - Ecohume - benefit of exemption - Whether the said product Ecohume can be classified as an organic substance coming under Entry 17 of III Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? Held that:- It has to be understood that the scope and purpose of Entry 17 in III Schedule of the Act read together with the Explanation cannot be found analogous to Entry 31.011 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. No where in Annexure F order has it been held that 'Ecohume' is an 'organic manure' so as to import the finding to the requirement of Entry 17 read with the explanation. For the purpose of Central Excise Tariff Act what was required to be proved was that it is an animal or vegetable fertilizer, whether or not mixed together or chemically treated. But the scope of Entry 17 of III Schedule, especially in view of Explanation to Entry 17 as also Entry 47 of the First Schedule would indicate that what is required for the exemption to be granted under Entry 17, is that it should be an "organic manure" and applying the rule of ejusdem generis to the articles mentioned under Entry 17, which are cow dung, wood ash, poultry manure, green manure, compost, town compost, fish manure; organic manure can only be that produced or derived naturally from animals or plants not otherwise subjected to a manufacturing or chemical process - The purpose of Entry 17 is not to include all 'organic substances' within its fold. The report of the Agricultural University also states the the product 'Ecohume' is a growth promoter or a growth stimulant; which offers no aid to decide on the classification. A similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Nelkadir Bone Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, [2013 (5) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT], wherein the question that arose was whether the legislature was justified in including bone meal, under the head fertilizer in Entry 57(V) of the I Schedule to the Act instead of showing the same as organic manure in Entry 17 of third schedule of the KGST Act, and whether it is arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be declared as organic manure entitled for exemption - it was held that Since it has been held that 'bone meal' did not qualify to be an organic manure for the reason that it is not produced by a natural process, the principle laid down by the Apex Court has no relevance. The impugned finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable, and requires to be reversed as being perverse on facts for having relied on irrelevant factors and not having taken into account the relevant considerations - revision allowed.
|