Commodity classification and prospective revisional effect: resin coated sand falls in the residuary entry, and correction operates only going forward.

Resin coated sand was treated as distinct from ordinary sand because it undergoes a manufacturing process, so it did not fall within entry 83 of the Third Schedule and was classified under the residuary provision. The contrary classification by the Advance Rulings Authority could not stand because the Tribunal's earlier view on the commodity's nature had already attained finality and should have been followed. On the temporal effect of the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order under section 64(2), the correction operated prospectively only and did not create retrospective liability, particularly where tax had been collected at the lower rate on the basis of the earlier clarification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether resin coated sand falls under entry 83 of the Third Schedule or the residuary provision under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003; and (ii) whether the Commissioner's order passed in exercise of suo motu power under section 64(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 operates prospectively or retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether resin coated sand falls under entry 83 of the Third Schedule or the residuary provision under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Resin coated sand was held to be different from ordinary sand because it involves a manufacturing process. The Tribunal's earlier view that resin coated sand is not the same as original sand had already attained finality. The Advance Rulings Authority, therefore, ought to have followed that binding position and its contrary classification could not stand. Once the commodity was found not to answer the description of sand and grits in entry 83, it was liable to be classified under the residuary provision.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's order passed in exercise of suo motu power under section 64(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 operates prospectively or retrospectively.

Analysis: The setting aside of the Advance Rulings Authority's order by the Commissioner did not justify giving the revisional order retrospective effect. The revisional power could be exercised to correct the position going forward, but not to fasten liability retrospectively in the circumstances of the case. The court accepted that the assessee had collected tax at the lower rate on the basis of the earlier clarification, supporting prospective operation only.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The commodity classification issue succeeded for the Revenue, while the temporal operation of the Commissioner's revisional order succeeded for the assessee, resulting in a partial success for both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: A binding prior classification of a commodity must be followed unless displaced by law, and revisional interference correcting such classification operates prospectively unless the statute or the circumstances clearly justify retrospective effect.

---