Tendu leaves taxability under VAT law: schedule amendment upheld, exemption notifications limited, and statutory remedy required.

Tendu leaves were treated as taxable at 25% under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 because the charging provision in Section 8 operated with Schedule II, and the schedule amendment was described as a structural correction rather than a change in rate. The exemption notifications for minor forest produce did not apply to tendu leaves where they were separately exigible to tax under the specific schedule entry. The writ challenge was considered unsuitable on mixed questions of fact and law, and the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory exemption mechanism before the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether tendu leaves were liable to tax at the rate of 25% under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, whether the exemption notifications for minor forest produce applied to tendu leaves, and whether the petitioners were entitled to writ relief or must pursue the statutory remedy before the Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was the charging provision for goods specified in Schedule II, and the Schedule was amended so that the entry relating to tendu leaves reflected the rate of tax consistently with the charging section. The challenge to the amendment procedure under Section 15A was not supported by pleadings and, in any event, the amendment did not alter the rate of tax but only corrected the schedule structure. The exemption notifications for minor forest produce could operate only where the goods were otherwise exigible to tax. Since tendu leaves were separately taxable under Schedule II, the notifications did not confer exemption from the specific taxable entry. The matter was also treated as involving mixed questions of fact and law, for which the petitioners were relegated to the statutory authority.

Conclusion: The challenge to the 25% tax rate and the claim for direct exemption failed in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were left to seek exemption before the Commissioner under the statutory mechanism.

---