MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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