Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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