Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether super glue marketed by the appellant fell under item 164(10) of the Third Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and was therefore liable to a lower rate of tax, or was taxable at 12.5% under the relevant notification and charging provision.
Analysis: The product was examined on its actual commercial character and use. The Court found that super glue is a glue used for joining things together and does not answer the description of "esters of unsaturated acyclic monoacids" in the Third Schedule. The rate of tax was determined by the statutory classification of the commodity rather than by expert opinion or the etymological meaning of the product. The substituted charging provision and the later notification did not assist the appellant, because the product had already been treated as taxable at 12.5% and did not fall within the claimed concessional entry.
Conclusion: The product did not fall under item 164(10) of the Third Schedule and was taxable at 12.5% under the relevant entry. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The tax classification adopted by the authorities was upheld and the appeals were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: For commodity taxation, classification must be determined by the statutory entry and the commercial identity of the goods, not by expert opinion or the etymological meaning of the product.