Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |     A cheque issued as security does not represent a legally enforceable debt: Madras HC Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case    |    

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.​.

 

Similar News