High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Thomson Paper Products vs The Commissioner on 11 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S.Thomson Paper Products vs The Commissioner on 11 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OT.Appeal.No. 1 of 2006()


1. M/S.THOMSON PAPER PRODUCTS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :11/06/2008

 O R D E R
                                                                C.R.
        C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
                       -------------------------
                       O.T.A. No.1 of 2006,
            WP(C) Nos.36213 of 2007 & 415 of 2008
                   ---------------------------------
              Dated, this the 11th day of June, 2008

                           J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The only issue arising in all the three cases filed by the same

assessee pertains to the tax liability on assessee’s product, ‘white

oats’, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. On application

filed under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner of Commercial

Taxes, vide Annexure-A order produced in O.T.A.No.1/2006,

clarified that ‘white oats’ falls under the residual entry taxable at

12.5%. While petitioner is challenging the clarification in the O.T.A,

in the connected two cases, challenge is against assessments at the

higher rate of tax at 12.5%.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

assessee and learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent.

3. The first question to be considered is whether ‘white

oats’ sold by the assessee under the name “Shantis” is exempted

from tax under Original Entry 9 renumbered as 12 of the 1st

schedule to the Act and if not, the appropriate rate applicable to the

O.T.A.No.1/06, WP(C) Nos.36213/07 & 415/08
-2-

product under the other schedules to the Act. Learned counsel

appearing for the assesee has referred to the word used ‘Oats’ in

Entry 12(3) of the 1st schedule (previously item 9(3) of the same

schedule) and contended that ‘Oats’ in all forms are exempted from

tax. In order to appreciate the contention, we have to refer to the

relevant entry, which is extracted hereunder.

“12. Coarse grains other than rice and wheat

(1) Rye

(2) Barley

(3) Oats

(4) Maize (Corn)

(5) Grain Sorghum

(6) Buckwheat

(7) Millet including Jawar, Bajra, Ragi.

(8) Canary seed

(9) Paddy and Paddy Chaff

(10) Other cereals”

The question to be considered is whether ‘white oats’ marketed by

the assessee under the name “Shantis” can be treated as ‘Oats’ as

referred in the above entry. We have seen the product produced in

the Court, which is prepared oats flakes sold in a sealed container

made of plastic or poly carbonate. It is noticed from the product

description that no additives are used by the assessee in the

preparation and the product is 100% oats. It is stated in the

O.T.A.No.1/06, WP(C) Nos.36213/07 & 415/08
-3-

attached label that the item can be consumed after cooking in milk

or water for 5 minutes. It is obvious from the nature of the product

and the product description that it is not ‘Oats’ grain pure and

simple, but is a preparation made of it. It may probably be

comparable to rice flakes made from rice or corn flakes made from

corn. Entry heading of Item 12 of 1st schedule makes it clear that

the items intended to be covered under the group heading are

‘coarse grains’. The assessee’s product is not ‘coarse grain’ but a

refined product made out of coarse grain ‘oats’. Moreover, items 1

to 9 arrayed under Entry 12 of 1st schedule are not any product of

the grain named therein, but are grains of various types in the pure

and simple form. We, therefore, reject assessee’s claim that the

product is exempted from tax under item 12(3) of the 1st schedule

to the Act.

4. The next question to be considered is whether the item

falls under any entry of any of the other schedules to the Act to

justify the clarification and assessment under the residual entry at

12.5%. Learned counsel for the assessee has referred to items

contained in Entries 48 & 49 of the 3rd schedule to the Act, which

provide for levy of tax on various forms of grains and food products.

For easy reference, we extract hereunder Entries 48 & 49 of the 3rd

O.T.A.No.1/06, WP(C) Nos.36213/07 & 415/08
-4-

schedule to the Act.

“48. Flour, Atta, Maida, Suji, Besan and dough

(1) Wheat or meslin flour

(2) Rye flour

(3) Maize (corn) flour

(4) Rice flour (puttu podi and the like)

(5) Other cereal flour

(6) Flour, meal and powder of the dried leguminous

vegetables

(7) Wet mix.

49. Food products like pickles, corn flakes, savouries, sweets

made of groundnuts, gingelly, other than those sold under brand

name registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

(1) Pickles

(2) Savories like chips, popcorn, murukku, achappam,

pakoda, mixture, chikky items, kuzhalappam and

similar preparations.

(3) Corn flakes

(4) Sweets made of groundnuts or gingily.”

Obviously ‘oats’ is not an item covered by Entry 48. However, it is

a food product like corn flakes, which is covered by Entry 49. Even

though learned Government Pleader pointed out that only four

items are covered by Entry 49, which does not prescribe ‘oats’

specifically, we find item (2) of Entry 49 refers to similar

preparations. Since Entry 49 provides for food products, we are of

the view that food products other than those mentioned elsewhere

O.T.A.No.1/06, WP(C) Nos.36213/07 & 415/08
-5-

will come under ‘similar preparations’ referred to in Entry 49(2) of

the 3rd schedule. We, therefore, hold that ‘white oats’ other than

those sold under brand name registered under the Trade Marks Act

1999, will be taxable at 4% under Entry 49(2) of the 3rd schedule to

the KVAT Act. It is for the Assessing Officer to examine whether

the appellant has obtained a trade mark registration for the product

and if not to assess the product at 4%. In view of the above

findings, we allow O.T.A.No.1/2006 in part by holding that ‘white

oats’ is taxable under Entry 49(2) of the 3rd schedule @ 4%, if the

assessee does not have a registered brand name under the Trade

Marks Act, 1999. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing

Officer to revise the assessments made up to date at 4% but forfeit

excess collection of tax after date of clarification.

The O.T.A and the writ petitions are allowed to the extent

indicated above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)
jg