Excisable goods not taxable under commercial tax or VAT merely because they are under excise control for the pre-2013 period.

IMFL and rectified spirit were held not liable to commercial tax or VAT for the period before 1.4.2013 merely because they were excisable articles under the M.P. Excise Act. The Court applied the legal position from the connected leading judgment and found that the relevant schedule entries under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 did not support levy for that period. The challenged assessment, revisional, appellate and show cause proceedings were therefore unsustainable and were quashed for the pre-1.4.2013 period. The Court left other issues concerning rectified spirit open for future cases.

---

---

Issues: Whether IMFL and rectified spirit, for the period prior to 1.4.2013, were liable to commercial tax or VAT under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 merely because they were excisable articles under the M.P. Excise Act.

Analysis: The petitions were decided by applying the legal position already declared in the connected leading judgment. The relevant goods were treated as excisable articles, and for the assessment period prior to 1.4.2013 the entries in the commercial tax and VAT schedules did not justify levy of commercial tax or VAT on such goods. In view of that conclusion, the Court declined to examine the other questions raised in relation to rectified spirit and left them open for future cases, if .

Conclusion: The levy and the impugned assessment, revisional, appellate and show cause proceedings could not be sustained for the period in question, and the petitions were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The challenged tax demands and related proceedings were quashed for the pre-1.4.2013 period on the basis that the goods were not taxable under the cited commercial tax and VAT provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: For the relevant period, excisable goods not made taxable by the applicable schedule entries could not be subjected to commercial tax or VAT merely because they were liable to excise control under the State excise law.

---