https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162059 Branded coconut oil could not be subjected to a higher tax rate than other edible oils unless the State demonstrated an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statute's object. The claimed basis was that branded coconut oil was mainly used as hair oil, but no supporting material, facts, or figures were produced to substantiate that premise. A mere departmental opinion or policy assumption was insufficient to justify the differential fiscal treatment. The Karnataka HC therefore held that the classification under entry No. 17-A failed the Article 14 test and was unconstitutional and discriminatory. en-us Tue, 03 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:05:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162059 Branded coconut oil could not be subjected to a higher tax rate than other edible oils unless the State demonstrated an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statute's object. The claimed basis was that branded coconut oil was mainly used as hair oil, but no supporting material, facts, or figures were produced to substantiate that premise. A mere departmental opinion or policy assumption was insufficient to justify the differential fiscal treatment. The Karnataka HC therefore held that the classification under entry No. 17-A failed the Article 14 test and was unconstitutional and discriminatory. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 03 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162059