TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of assessee on product classification dispute under RVAT Act</h1> <h3>Reckitt Binckiser (India) Ltd., Sudarshan Enterprises Versus Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion, Jaipur And Others</h3> Reckitt Binckiser (India) Ltd., Sudarshan Enterprises Versus Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion, Jaipur And Others - [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 181 ... Issues Involved:1. Classification of 'Harpic' and 'Lizol' under the RVAT Act.2. Classification of 'Dettol' under the RVAT Act.3. Justification of penalty under Section 61 of the RVAT Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of 'Harpic' and 'Lizol' under the RVAT Act:The primary issue was whether 'Harpic' and 'Lizol' should be classified under Entry 21 or Entry 29 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act, which pertains to insecticides and pesticides, or under the residuary entry of Schedule V, which attracts a higher tax rate. The court noted that the Tax Board and lower authorities erroneously classified these products under Schedule V, failing to appreciate that these products have disinfectant and insecticidal properties.The court emphasized that specific entries should take precedence over residuary entries. It referred to the test reports from government laboratories certifying these products as insecticides/pesticides, which should not have been disregarded by the lower authorities. The court also cited various judgments, including *Ponds India Limited* and *Bombay Chemical Pvt Ltd.*, to support the classification of such products under specific entries related to insecticides and pesticides.2. Classification of 'Dettol' under the RVAT Act:The court upheld the Tax Board's classification of 'Dettol' as a drug/medicine under Entry 21 of Schedule IV. It referred to the judgment in *M/s. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs. CTO*, which recognized 'Savlon' as a drug/medicine due to its antiseptic properties. The court noted that 'Dettol' has similar medicinal value and should be classified accordingly.3. Justification of penalty under Section 61 of the RVAT Act:The court found no justification for the penalty imposed under Section 61 of the RVAT Act. It highlighted that the issue was one of classification, not evasion of tax. The books of accounts were maintained correctly, and all sales were recorded. The court referred to the judgment in *Shree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another*, which established that penalties are not applicable in cases of classification disputes. Consequently, the penalty was deemed inappropriate.Judgment Summary:- For 'Harpic' and 'Lizol': The court ruled that these products should be classified under Entry 21 or Entry 29 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act, as they possess insecticidal and disinfectant properties. The lower authorities' decision to classify them under the residuary entry was overturned.- For 'Dettol': The court upheld the classification of 'Dettol' as a drug/medicine under Entry 21 of Schedule IV, aligning with its antiseptic properties.- Penalty under Section 61: The court ruled that the penalty was unjustified and should not be imposed in cases involving classification disputes. The penalty was therefore dismissed.The petitions filed by the assessee were allowed, and those filed by the revenue were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 