TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Kerala High Court classifies 'polystik compound' as adhesive for tax, emphasizing primary function over secondary features.</h1> <h3>State of Kerala Versus Shaji Joseph</h3> State of Kerala Versus Shaji Joseph - [2003] 129 STC 475 (Ker) Issues:1. Rate of tax payable on 'polystik compound' sold by the petitioner.Analysis:The judgment of the Kerala High Court addressed the common issue of determining the rate of tax applicable to the product 'polystik compound' sold by the petitioner. The case involved Tax Revision Cases arising from both revised and original assessments, with the core issue being the classification of the product for tax purposes. Initially, the assessing officer categorized the item under general goods, but later revised the assessment applying a 10% tax rate for 'adhesives' as per the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The first appellate authority ruled in favor of the petitioner, leading to the State filing a revision before the High Court.The court heard arguments from the Government Pleader representing the State and the counsel for the respondents. The State contended that the product should be classified as an adhesive based on its description by the manufacturer and the respondents in their returns. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the item should fall under the residuary entry in the First Schedule as it was not specifically covered under any other entry. The crucial question was whether the 'polystik compound' should be considered an adhesive or a product falling under the residuary entry.Upon reviewing the lower authorities' orders and considering the purpose and use of the product, the court analyzed that the primary function of the 'polystik compound' was as an adhesive material for fixing rainguard on rubber trees during the rainy season. While the compound also had a secondary feature of preventing water leakage, its essential characteristic was its adhesive nature, crucial for binding cloth to the tree. The court noted that the manufacturer and dealers consistently referred to the item as an 'adhesive' in transport documents and returns. Despite the respondents' argument that the coating primarily served as waterproofing, they did not contest its adhesive function.In comparing the case to a precedent from the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding M-seal, the court found that the essential purpose of the 'polystik compound' as an adhesive distinguished it from a mere leak-preventing material. As the item was undeniably used as an adhesive to attach rainguard to trees, the court concluded that it should be classified under item 3 of the First Schedule as an 'adhesive.' Therefore, the court allowed the revisions filed by the State, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the assessment of the product as an adhesive under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the classification of the 'polystik compound' for tax purposes, emphasizing its adhesive nature based on its use and function in fixing rainguard on rubber trees. The decision highlighted the importance of consistent classification by the parties involved and distinguished the product from a mere leak-preventing material, ultimately ruling in favor of the State's revision.
TaxTMI 