TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone, Cuttack, in Revision Case No. CU 1-272/05-06 (annexure 5), affirming the view taken by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack. In W.P. (C) No. 15482 of 2007, the petitioner has challenged the validity of notification dated May 31, 2007 by which amendment of entry in serial No. 47 of Part II of Schedule B to the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (in short, "the OVAT Act") as well as insertion of an Explanation to entry serial No. 125 of Part II, Schedule B to the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 has been challenged. Mr. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, asserts that the petitioner deals with "coconut oil" and the said product is covered under serial No. l24 vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cent as is leviable for edible oil or vegetable oil. Thus it is contended that the same has resulted in unfair discrimination against the petitioner. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand submits that the very same issue was raised by the petitioner also before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal which was pleased to reject the same. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. CST, West Bengal has been reported in [2008] 12 VST 485 (WBTT). In the said judgment the Tribunal came to hold that "coconut oil" is not generally used by the consumers in West Bengal as an edible oil and accordingly further hold that consumption pattern of "coconut oil" in West Bengal clearly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....choose articles for taxation. So long as the competence of the Legislature to tax "sugar-candy", which is commercially a different product from "sugar" is accepted, it cannot be said that the sales tax authorities were wrong in treating "sugar-candy" as one different from "sugar". This court came to a finding that sugar-candy was sold in the market as a separate commodity apart from sugar and the fact that sugar-candy was separately mentioned in different Schedules of the Sales Tax Act indicates that the Legislature intended to treat them differently while subjecting sugar-candy to tax and exempting sugar from tax. In so far as W.P. (C) No. 15482 of 2007 is concerned, Mr. Kar, appearing for the Revenue states that the amendment brought a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghee and serial No. 125 vegetable oil including gingelly oil, bran oil was also incorporated. Further amendment was made vide notification dated May 31, 2007 vide SRO No. 343-07 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 102A of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 whereby other amendments were carried out to Part II of Schedule B, whereby the impugned Explanation to the entry at serial No. 125 was introduced. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's product, namely, "coconut oil" ought to be accepted as vanaspati oil or vegetable oil under serial Nos. 124 and 125 is wholly without any basis since "coconut oil" has been mentioned in serial No. 47 by excluding the same from being treated as "edible oil".....