TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e being decided by this common judgment. The question of law involved in these revisions are as to whether pure coconut oil which is manufactured by the revisionist is taxable at 4% under entry 43 or entry 131 of Schedule II Part A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The other question of law in the case is as to whether Revive Instant Starch, which is also manufactured by the revisionist and which contains 90% tapioca starch and about 3% of other additives is liable to be charged to tax under Entry 118 of Schedule II Part A of VAT Act, 2008 or was liable to be treated as an unclassified item chargeable to tax at 12.5%. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the revisionist is a registered Company manufacturing 100% pure coconut oil hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals to the appellate authority for reconsideration. So far the Revive Instant Starch is concerned, the Tribunal held that Entry no. 118 of Schedule II Part A mentions Starch, Sago and sabudana and has rejected the claim of the revisionist that Revive Starch be treated as classified item under Entry 118 of the Schedule II Part A. I have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Shubham Agrawal for the revisionist and Sri Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned counsel for the respondent, Revenue. So far as the finding of the Tribunal on the question of coconut oil is concerned, in my opinion the Tribunal having accepted that the findings recorded by the authorities below that pure edible coconut oil should be ident....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 0.75% 7. Colour Granules 1% The submission of the learned senior counsel is that Tapioca starch which is edible comprises about 97% of the product and the remaining items from 2 to 7 contains a negligible 3% of the chemicals and therefore Revive Starch must necessarily be classified as Starch falling in Entry 118 of Schedule II, Part A and therefore liable to tax as such and not be treated as an unclassified item. The submission further is that Entry 118 of the Schedule II, Part A mentions only Starch and does not draw any distinction between edible starch and non edible starch and therefore it would make no difference if by addition of about 3% of solium laury 1 sulphate, silicon dioxide, perfume assem B, titanium dioxid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....118 would necessarily mean edible starch and not Revive Starch which is admittedly not edible starch since after mixing of 3% of the chemicals to tapioca starch it no longer remains edible. The learned counsel for the Revenue further submitted that applying the principles of ejusdem generis since Sago and Sabudana are edible items therefore Starch in Entry 118 must necessarily be interpreted to mean edible starch, as the meaning of the word would flow from the context in which the word or words preceding it or following it collectively mean. In my view Sago and Sabudana in Entry 118 have not been mentioned as edible or inedible nor has it been informed to the Court that there is any other form of Sago or Sabudana which may not be edible. So....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "paddy". When it is removed from husk, the husk and rice become separately taxable. But, there are not separate entries for rice and rice reduced into an edible form by heating or parching without any addition of ingredients or appreciable changes in chemical composition. The term "rice" is wide enough to include rice in its various forms whether edible or inedible. Rice in the form of grain is not edible Parched rice and puffed rice are edible. But, the entry "rice" seems to us to cover bothy forms of rice. At any rate, it is wide enough to cover them." In paragraph 8 of the said judgment the Supreme Court further held as under: "We do not think that it is fair to so interpret a taxing statute as to impute an intention to the legisl....