Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Affirms Taxation of Maize Starch, Dismisses Appeals Seeking Exemption

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the taxation of maize starch and dismissed the appeals filed by Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited, seeking exemption. The bench, comprising Hon'ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta, declared on July 4, 2023, "Maize starch falls under the taxation entry for 'sago and starch of any kind,' subject to a 4% tax rate."

The case centered on the classification and taxation of maize starch under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The appellant, Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited, argued for exemption based on an Exemption Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, subsequent amendments to the Act altered the entry for maize starch, making it subject to a 4% tax rate.

Represented by Mr. K.K. Mani, the appellant contended that Exemption Entry No. 8, covering products of millets, encompassed maize starch. The appellant relied on previous circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to support their claim. Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, representing the respondents, asserted that maize starch should be taxed under the broader category of 'sago and starch of any kind.'

The Supreme Court, after careful analysis of the provisions and amendments, concurred with the High Court's judgment. They stated, "Taxation Entry No. 61 encompasses maize starch under the category of 'sago and starch of any kind,' attracting a 4% tax rate." The Court emphasized that Exemption Entry No. 8 specifically applied to products of millets and did not extend to maize starch due to its status as a processed product.

Rejecting the appellant's argument regarding the retrospective effect of the Commissioner's clarification, the Court declared, "Clarifications issued by the Commissioner can have retrospective application to make the rate of tax explicit."

Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the taxation of maize starch. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

DATE OF DECISION: July 4, 2023

Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.   

Latest Legal News