Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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