https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165357 The court held that coconut oil sold under a brand name for cooking purposes should be taxed at a lower rate compared to coconut oil sold as hair oil. The amendment specifying higher tax rates for coconut oil sold under a brand name was deemed valid, as the samples analyzed indicated suitability for edible purposes. The court found that the legislature had not properly distinguished between hair oil and edible oil, leading to an incorrect relief granted to the assessee. The single judge's order was set aside, directing the appellant to assess taxation based on the intended use of the coconut oil. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165357 The court held that coconut oil sold under a brand name for cooking purposes should be taxed at a lower rate compared to coconut oil sold as hair oil. The amendment specifying higher tax rates for coconut oil sold under a brand name was deemed valid, as the samples analyzed indicated suitability for edible purposes. The court found that the legislature had not properly distinguished between hair oil and edible oil, leading to an incorrect relief granted to the assessee. The single judge's order was set aside, directing the appellant to assess taxation based on the intended use of the coconut oil. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165357