Maize starch taxable under "sago and starch" entry in Tamil Nadu tax law, SC upholds HC decision, circular valid retroactively.

The SC upheld the HC's decision, ruling that maize starch is taxable under the entry for "sago and starch of any kind" in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Circular dated 8th October 1998 was deemed valid and applicable retrospectively. The appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of maize starch under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Validity and applicability of the Circular dated 8th October, 1998.
3. Retrospective effect of the Circular dated 8th October, 1998.

Summary:

Classification of Maize Starch:
The appellant, registered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, deals in maize starch since 1975. The classification of maize starch under the Act is the subject of dispute. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued an Exemption Notification in 1970 exempting products of millets, including maize, from tax. However, subsequent amendments to the Act introduced a tax on "sago and starch of any kind" and moved it to different entries with varying tax rates. The appellant argued that maize starch should be classified as a product of millet and thus be exempt from tax, while the respondents contended that maize starch falls under the taxable entry for "sago and starch of any kind."

Validity and Applicability of the Circular:
The Commissioner issued a Circular on 23rd June, 1998, clarifying that Exemption Entry No. 8 does not encompass maize starch, which is distinct from maize flour. This Circular was later canceled and replaced by another Circular on 8th October, 1998, which clarified that maize starch is taxable from 1st April, 1994, under the specific entry for "sago and starch of any kind" at a 4% tax rate. The appellant's representation against this clarification was rejected, leading to litigation.

Retrospective Effect of the Circular:
The appellant challenged the Circular dated 8th October, 1998, arguing that it should not have retrospective effect. However, the Supreme Court held that the clarification issued by the Commissioner was to make the rate of tax explicit and was bound to be retrospective to clear the existing confusion. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the Circular should only apply prospectively.

Analysis and Findings:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's ultimate conclusion but provided its own reasoning. The Court noted that the Exemption Notification did have statutory backing but was superseded by subsequent amendments to the Act. The Court held that maize starch, being a processed product, does not qualify as a product of millet under Exemption Entry No. 8. Instead, it falls under the taxable entry for "sago and starch of any kind." The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear, and maize starch should be taxed accordingly.

Conclusions:
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment, dismissing the appeals and ruling that maize starch is taxable under the entry for "sago and starch of any kind." The Circular dated 8th October, 1998, was found to be valid and applicable retrospectively. The appeals were dismissed, and parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---