Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of Products under Kerala VAT Ac

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India provided clarity on the classification of certain products under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, 2003. The case involved the classification of Mosquito Mats, Coils, and Vaporizers; Mortein Insect Killers; Harpic Toilet Cleaner; Lizol Floor Cleaners; and Dettol Antiseptic Liquid.

The appellant contended that the products should be classified under Entry No. 44(5) (insecticides) or Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) (medicaments) of the KVAT Act. However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected these claims, and the High Court upheld the Commissioner's classification.

After examining the relevant entries in the KVAT Act, the Supreme Court ruled that Mosquito Mats, Coils, and Vaporizers; Mortein Insect Killers should be classified under Sl. No. 66 of Notification SRO 82/06 dated 21.01.2006 as "Mosquito Repellants," attracting a tax rate of 12.5%.

Similarly, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners were classified under Entry 27(4) of Notification SRO 82/06, with a tax rate of 12.5% applicable to these products.

In the case of Dettol Antiseptic Liquid, the Supreme Court held that it should be classified as a medicament under Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of Schedule III of the KVAT Act, attracting a tax rate of 4%. The court considered the active ingredients and dominant use of Dettol, emphasizing its therapeutic and prophylactic properties.

The Supreme Court also referred to the decisions of the Guwahati High Court and Rajasthan High Court, which had classified Dettol as a drug under their respective VAT Acts. The court upheld these decisions.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of classification, including the plain meaning of taxing provisions, the burden of proof on the Revenue, resolving ambiguity in favor of the assessee, the overriding effect of specific entries over residuary entries, and resorting to the residuary entry as a last measure.

As a result of the judgment, the classification for Mosquito Mats, Coils, and Vaporizers; Harpic Toilet Cleaner; and Lizol Floor Cleaners was confirmed, while the classification for Dettol Antiseptic Liquid was set aside, classifying it as a medicament with a tax rate of 4%.

DATE OF DECISION: April 10, 2023

 M/s Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd.   vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes & Ors.   

Latest Legal News