Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court

28 September 2024 1:32 PM

By: sayum


Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Prakash Soya Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors., ruled in favor of the state, upholding the levy of entry tax on crude soybean oil brought into the state for refining. The court rejected the argument that refining crude oil does not constitute "use" or "consumption" under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 1976.

Prakash Soya Ltd., a company involved in importing crude soybean oil and refining it into edible oil, challenged the imposition of entry tax by the Madhya Pradesh tax authorities. The company contended that the refining process did not amount to manufacturing, and thus the crude oil was not "used" or "consumed" within the state, exempting it from entry tax under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Entry Tax Act.

The petitioners relied on various Supreme Court judgments, asserting that no new commodity emerged from the refining process and that no entry tax should be levied on goods that were exported after refinement.

The central issue before the court was whether refining crude soybean oil constitutes "use" or "consumption" for the purposes of imposing entry tax. The petitioners argued that crude oil remains the same commodity after refining, and thus the process does not amount to consumption or use.

However, the court disagreed, holding that the refining process transforms crude oil into a consumable product—refined soybean oil—which is sold in the market. It noted that even though refining does not amount to "manufacturing" under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, it constitutes "use" under the Entry Tax Act.

Justice Vivek Rusia, in his ruling, emphasized that the transformation of crude oil into refined soybean oil through processes like degumming, deacidification, and deodorization, resulted in a marketable product distinct from crude oil. The court further explained that for purposes of entry tax, "use" includes any process that results in a commercially viable product. Therefore, the crude oil was indeed "used" within the state, making it subject to entry tax.

The court also upheld the orders of the revisional authority, concluding that no grounds existed to interfere with the levy of tax.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling clarifies that refining crude oil qualifies as a taxable use of goods under the Entry Tax Act. This decision reinforces the state's authority to levy entry tax on goods brought into the state for processing and later sold elsewhere.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2024

Prakash Soya Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.​.

 

Latest Legal News