Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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