Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules Gambier taxed at higher rate, distinct from Catechu.</h1> <h3>M/s. RK. Trading Versus Commercial Trade Tax, Appellate Tribunal</h3> M/s. RK. Trading Versus Commercial Trade Tax, Appellate Tribunal - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether Gambier is catechu liable to tax at the rate of 4% or it is an unclassified item liable to tax at the rate of 12.5%.2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal is based on irrelevant material.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Tax Classification of Gambier:The main issue revolves around the classification of Gambier for tax purposes. The applicant argued that Gambier should be taxed at 4% as it is equivalent to KATTHA (Catechu), which is specified in Entry-68 of Part-A of Schedule-II to the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The applicant supported this claim by citing literature indicating that Catechu can be prepared from Gambier and that they are used for similar purposes.Conversely, the respondent contended that Gambier and Catechu are entirely different commodities. Gambier is non-edible and mainly used for tanning and dyeing, while Catechu is edible and used in betel, pan masala, and medicine. The Tribunal's decision, which was based on a Full Bench decision and supported by the Chief Public Analyst's report, stated that Gambier is a non-edible commodity and different from Catechu. The Tribunal concluded that Gambier should be taxed as an unclassified item, at 12.5% for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.5.2009 and 13.5% from 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010.The court emphasized the importance of common parlance in interpreting taxation statutes, noting that Gambier and Catechu are understood as different commodities by consumers and traders. The court cited several precedents where the common parlance test was applied to determine the classification of goods for tax purposes. Consequently, the court affirmed that Gambier is not KATTHA and should be taxed as an unclassified item.2. Relevance of Tribunal's Materials:The applicant challenged the Tribunal's reliance on certain materials, arguing that they were irrelevant. However, the court found that the Tribunal's decision was well-founded and supported by substantial evidence, including the Full Bench decision and the Chief Public Analyst's report. The court reiterated that the Tribunal had correctly applied the common parlance test and other principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.The court also referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments that reinforced the principle of interpreting tax statutes based on common parlance unless a contrary intention is explicitly stated by the legislature. The court concluded that the Tribunal's reliance on the Full Bench decision and other materials was appropriate and did not constitute a manifest error.Conclusion:The court dismissed the revisions, holding that Gambier is not KATTHA and should be taxed as an unclassified item. The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and ruled in favor of the revenue on both questions of law. The court emphasized the application of the common parlance test and upheld the Tribunal's findings based on relevant materials and established legal principles.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found