1984 (1) TMI 287 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax classification based on use, not composition. Adhesive Fiksol-S not a chemical for tax purposes.

State of Tamil Nadu Versus Indian Eyelets Industries

The High Court of Madras ruled in a tax case regarding the classification of adhesive product Fiksol-S. 69 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, ... - Issues:1. Classification of adhesive product for tax purposes under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - whether taxable at 8% or 4% multi-point.The High Court of Madras in the cited judgment addressed the issue of the classification of an adhesive product, Fiksol-S. 69, for tax purposes under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Revenue contended that the adhesive should be taxed at 8% under item 138 of the First Schedule, covering 'dyes and chemicals,' while the assessee argued for a 4% multi-point tax rate. The assessing authority, relying on a clarification by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, held that the adhesive falls under the 8% tax category. The appellate authority also supported this view, considering the ingredients of the adhesive to be chemicals. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the nature of the product should be determined by its use rather than its constituents. The Tribunal found that Fiksol-S. 69, used solely for binding purposes, does not undergo a chemical process or change, and thus should not be classified as a chemical under item 138.The High Court, upon review, concurred with the Tribunal's decision. It noted that Fiksol-S. 69 is a versatile adhesive used for binding various surfaces, but its application does not result in a chemical effect or change. The court referenced similar decisions by other High Courts, including the Allahabad High Court and the Gujarat High Court, which held that adhesives not causing a chemical change should not be classified as chemicals for tax purposes. The court highlighted that the term 'dyes and chemicals' in item 138 should be interpreted to include intermediary chemical products, not end-products like the adhesive in question. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the tax cases brought by the Revenue.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the classification of products for tax purposes should consider their actual use and effects, rather than solely their chemical composition. The court's analysis underscores the importance of interpreting tax statutes in line with the intended scope and purpose of the legislation, ensuring a fair and accurate application of tax rates based on the nature of the goods involved.