9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant/Assessee and Ms. Mamta S.Talwar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the Respondent. 5. The background facts are that the Appellant is a dealer registered as such under the HVAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Appellant is engaged in the business of trading of mineral water, aerated drinks and a mango based fruit drink 'Slice'. The Appellant is registered with the Assessing Authority, Rohtak ('AA'). 6.The return filed by the Appellant for the AY 2010-11 under the HVAT Act was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices in Form VAT N-2 were served on the Appellant. The assessment was finalized under Section 15 (3) of the HVAT Act by the AA by an order dated 8th November, 2013 calculating the liability of Rs. 515/-. 7.The DETC-cum-Revisional Authority, Rohtak ('RA') issued a notice to the Appellant under Section 34 of the HVAT Act on the basis that the assessment order dated 8th November, 2013 suffered from the following illegality and impropriety which were prejudicial to the interest of the State: 'The Assessing Authority has assessed the tax on slice/Maaza @ 5.25% instead of @ 13.125% as the goods are uncla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant on the following decisions: Edward Keventer Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat State of Agricultural Marketing Board (2000) 6 SCC 264; Parle Agro Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum (2017) 7 SCC 540; Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (VATAP No.32 of 2009); Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (CWP No.6805 of 2005); Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2009) 25 VST 41; Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. State of Haryana 58 PHT 162 (HTT) and S.R.Foils and Tissue Limited v. The State of Haryana 2016 SCC On Line P&H 18333. 13.Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the Respondents defended the impugned order of the Tribunal. According to her, only drinks made of fruits/vegetables would be covered by Entry 100-D. In other words, the drink must predominately contain the fruit as pointed out by the Tribunal. Since the product Slice contains only 16% mango fruit, 70% water and 13% Sugar, it cannot be classified as a fruit drink. The fruit content was only 1/6th of the product. She sought to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Appellant. 14. The entry in question i.e. 100-D of Schedule-C to the HVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any as raw material from outside agencies. Similarly, one of the ingredients of Appy is apple concentrate and not apple. The pulp is first, passed through a filter and stored in beverage tank. Similarly sugar in proportionate quantity is processed in the form of syrup after heating it to a certain temperature and then cooling it. Demineralised water is then added to the sugar syrup to the extent that it attains a certain 'brix' (sic brisk) content. Meanwhile in the beverage tank requisite amount of citric acid, non-alcoholic beverage base(NABB), other permitted additives, sodium citrate, vitamin C are added. Thereafter the sugar syrup and the mixture in the beverage tank are mixed in proportionate quantity. Thereafter the said mixture is passed through homogenizer and crushed at a very high pressure to disintegrate all the fibres, which are present in the beverage mixture. After homogenization, the mixture is then required to be passed through pasteurizer where it is heated to a temperature between 95 to 100 degrees centigrade for killing all the bacteria and micro organism, if there be any. Subsequently, the said mixture is passed through a cooling channel for cooling down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablets in any form including Item No.2 contains fruit juice, fruit concentrates, fruit squash, fruit syrup and pulp and fruit cordial. Soft drinks other than aerated branded soft drinks are included in Item No.3. Health drinks of all varieties are included in Item No.4 and similar other products not specifically mentioned under any other entry in this list or in any other Schedules were included in Item No.5. The Entry of fruit juice based drinks got subsumed in the residuary entry and the amendment by S.R.O. No.119 of 2008 did not change or affect the character and content of the products which were included in Entry 71." 18. Both the aforementioned decisions in Edward Keventer Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Parle Agro Pvt Ltd.(supra) support the proposition advanced by the Appellant in the present case that Entry 100-D of the Schedule C to the HVAT Act does not admit of a narrow interpretation particularly when it uses the words 'fruit drinks made of' the fruit in question. Even if one applied the common parlance test, the Appellant is right in contending that Slice does not cease to be a drink made of fruit only because the actual fruit content is 16%. 19.There is of course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
