Writ remedy and insecticide classification: allethrin-based mosquito repellent falls under the specific tax entry, not residuary rate.

A writ petition may remain maintainable despite an available appeal where a binding departmental circular makes the appellate remedy ineffective and merely formal. The text also explains that mosquito repellent containing allethrin can fall within the statutory meaning of insecticide: entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act covers insecticides without restricting them to agricultural use, and allethrin is treated as an insecticidal substance under the Insecticides Act. On that reasoning, classification under the residuary rate was unsustainable, and the levy had to be reassessed under the specific entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an appellate remedy in the face of a binding departmental circular; (ii) whether mosquito repellent containing allethrin was classifiable as an insecticide under entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and taxable at four per cent rather than under the residuary rate.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an appellate remedy in the face of a binding departmental circular.

Analysis: The alternative statutory remedy was examined in the light of the departmental circular and the settled principle that an appellate remedy may be treated as ineffective where the superior authority is bound by the same administrative instruction and the remedy would be an empty formality. On that footing, the writ court ought not to have declined interference merely on the ground of availability of appeal.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy was not efficacious, and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether mosquito repellent containing allethrin was classifiable as an insecticide under entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and taxable at four per cent rather than under the residuary rate.

Analysis: Entry 23 of the Third Schedule specifically includes insecticides, without limiting them to agricultural use. The definition of insecticide under section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, together with the Schedule to that Act, shows that allethrin is an insecticidal substance. Since the mosquito repellent contained allethrin and was manufactured under licence under the Insecticides Act, it fell within the statutory meaning of insecticide. The residuary rate could not therefore be applied.

Conclusion: Mosquito repellent is an insecticide falling under entry 23 of the Third Schedule, and the levy at the residuary rate was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both maintainability and classification, resulting in quashing of the adverse levy and remand for fresh assessment in accordance with the declared classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity answers the statutory definition of insecticide and is expressly covered by the relevant schedule entry, it cannot be assessed under a residuary entry; a writ remedy may also be maintained where the alternative appeal is rendered ineffective by binding administrative instructions.

---