Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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