Residuary tax classification requires Revenue proof, and later Schedule V insertion cannot apply retrospectively without clear intent.

Kurkure and Cheetos were held classifiable as namkeen under the specific VAT entry rather than the residuary Schedule V entry because the Revenue did not prove that they could not reasonably fit within a specific classification; product description, food-law indicators and FSSAI treatment supported the namkeen classification. A later insertion of the goods into Schedule V could not be applied retrospectively, as taxing amendments operate prospectively unless clear legislative intent shows otherwise. The impugned classification for the earlier tax period was therefore unsustainable and the revisions succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Kurkure and Cheetos are classifiable as namkeen under Entry 131 of Schedule IV to the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or fall in the residuary entry of Schedule V; (ii) Whether the subsequent insertion of the goods in Schedule V could be applied retrospectively to the relevant tax period.

Issue (i): Whether Kurkure and Cheetos are classifiable as namkeen under Entry 131 of Schedule IV to the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or fall in the residuary entry of Schedule V.

Analysis: The classification had to be tested on the basis of the specific entry under the VAT regime and not by mechanically relying on an earlier decision rendered under a different statute and on a different entry structure. The residuary entry can be invoked only when the Revenue establishes that the goods cannot reasonably fit within any specific entry. The Revenue did not discharge that burden through technical evidence or cogent material. The Court also accepted that food-law indicators, the product description, and the FSSAI classification supported treatment of the goods as namkeen, while the mere fact that the products are snacks did not exclude them from that category.

Conclusion: This issue is answered in favour of the assessee. Kurkure and Cheetos are not to be placed in the residuary entry merely on the basis adopted by the authorities below, and the finding of classification under Schedule V cannot stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent insertion of the goods in Schedule V could be applied retrospectively to the relevant tax period.

Analysis: A taxing amendment or substitution operates prospectively unless the legislation expressly provides retrospective effect. The later notification substituting Schedule V could not be used to alter the tax position for the earlier assessment period. In revenue matters, retrospective operation is not presumed where it would enlarge the burden on the assessee.

Conclusion: This issue is answered in favour of the assessee. The later insertion in Schedule V does not validate the impugned classification for the earlier period.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the authorities was unsustainable, the questions of law were answered for the assessee, and the revisions succeeded with the impugned orders being set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under a tax statute, a residuary entry may be applied only after the Revenue fails to show that the goods fit within any specific entry, and a subsequent taxing amendment cannot be given retrospective effect absent clear legislative intent.

---