Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        VAT and Sales Tax

        2018 (3) TMI 1326 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Court upholds tax assessment for Samosa as cooked food, not sweets/namkeen. Legal questions not substantial. The court upheld the tax assessment of Samosa at 8% for the initial period and 4% for the subsequent period. It determined that Samosa qualifies as cooked ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Court upholds tax assessment for Samosa as cooked food, not sweets/namkeen. Legal questions not substantial.

                              The court upheld the tax assessment of Samosa at 8% for the initial period and 4% for the subsequent period. It determined that Samosa qualifies as cooked food and not as sweets or namkeen, based on its shelf-life and consumption characteristics. The court dismissed arguments regarding statements made by the proprietor's son and inconsistency in tax treatment among adjacent shops, emphasizing that such factors do not constitute substantial legal questions. The revisions were dismissed without costs.




                              Issues Involved:

                              1. Justification of statements made by the son of the proprietor.
                              2. Determination of the tax rate for Samosa.
                              3. Consistency in tax standards for adjacent shops.

                              Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Justification of Statements Made by the Son of the Proprietor:

                              The revisionist questioned whether the statements made by the son of the proprietor, rather than an employee, were justified. The court concluded that this issue does not constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, it was not treated as a question of law.

                              2. Determination of the Tax Rate for Samosa:

                              The primary contention was whether Samosa should be taxed at 8% as "cooked food" or at 5% under the entry of "Sweets and Namkeen." The revisionist argued that Samosa should be taxed at 5%, similar to sweets and namkeen, based on common parlance and understanding. The State representative countered that Samosa, unlike namkeen, has a shorter shelf-life and should be consumed immediately, qualifying it as cooked food.

                              The court examined various precedents and legislative entries. Under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, "cooked food" attracted an 8% tax, while "sweets and namkeen" attracted a 5% tax. Under the VAT Act, "cooked food" initially attracted 4%, and later Samosa was taxed at 4%. The court referred to several judgments, including:

                              - Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow: Biscuits were not considered cooked food.
                              - Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore Vs. T.T.K. Health Care Ltd.: Fryums were not considered cooked food as they required further cooking.
                              - Commissioner of Trade Tax Uttar Pradesh vs. Associated Distributors Limited: Bubblegum was not considered sweetmeat.

                              The court concluded that Samosa, being ready to eat without further cooking, qualifies as cooked food. It was noted that Samosa is not similar to namkeen, which has a longer shelf-life and is often consumed over a longer period. Therefore, Samosa was to be taxed at 8% for the first six months and 4% for the subsequent six months under the VAT Act.

                              3. Consistency in Tax Standards for Adjacent Shops:

                              The revisionist argued that the tax authorities applied different standards to adjacent shops, which was unjust. The court held that this issue does not raise a substantial question of law. The court emphasized that tax treatment accorded to another dealer cannot influence the legal interpretation of the tax entry. The court must decide based on the substantial question of law, not on the treatment of other dealers.

                              Conclusion:

                              The court dismissed the revisions, upholding the tax assessment of Samosa at 8% for the first period and 4% for the subsequent period. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding the statements made by the son of the proprietor or the inconsistency in tax standards for adjacent shops. The revisions were dismissed without any order as to costs.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found