Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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