The High Court of Kerala allowed the sales tax revision, holding that laddu and jilebi are sweets taxable under Entry 20A of the First Schedule rather than exempt cooked food under Entry 12 of the Third Schedule.
The sales tax revision was allowed; the Tribunal's view was overturned in favour of the Revenue.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929
S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004
T.A.NO.523/1987 OF THE KERALSALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 15.3.2001) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86)
REVISION PETITIONER /APPELLANT/REVENUE:-
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ.
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:-
LAKSHMI VILAS BOARDING AND LOADGING, DEALER IN COOKED FOOD, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.JAYKAR.K.S.
THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004
-----------------------------------------Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2008
ORDER
K.M.Joseph, J.
Assessment in respect of the assessee for the year 1985-86 was completed by the assessing officer by finding that 'Laddu' and 'Jilebi' are to be assessed as sweets. The Tribunal in appeal carried by the State against the order of the appellate authority took the view that 'Laddu' and 'Jilebi' are cooked food and therefore entitled to be treated as exempted under Entry 12 of the Third Schedule.
“12. Cooked food including coffee, tea and like articles served in a hotel, restaurant or any other place not falling under entry 57 of the First schedule.”
“20A. Sweets not elsewhere mentioned in this Schedule
Coffee, tea, spices and manufactures thereof.”
has preferred this revision petition raising the following questions of law for our consideration.
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has erred in deciding that Sweets such
S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004
2
as Jilebi, Leddu etc. manufactured and sold by hotels are cooked food and hence not liable to tax.
“The contention that biscuits, puffs, jilabee, ladoo etc. are articles of 'cooked food' under item (12) in Schedule III is a slender assumption in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 48 STC 254. Ordinarily biscuit is not understood as cooked food and it cannot be treated as cooked food. If this is the view to be taken about the meaning of 'cooked food' in Schedule III of our enactment also, almost all the contentions of the petitioners will have to fail. But it is not necessary to express a final opinion on the question for the present purposes.”
S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004
3
Biscuit Manufacturing Co. , the Court has held as follows:
“It is a well-settled rule of construction that the words used in a law imposing a tax should be construed in the same way in which they are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force. If an expression is capable of a wider meaning as well as narrower meaning the question whether the wider or the narrower meaning should be given depends on the context and the background of the case. In Hinde v. Allmond (1) (1918) 87 L.J.K.B.893, the question was whether tea was an “article of food” within the meaning of an order designed to prohibit the hoarding of food, namely, Food Hoarding Order of 1917. The leaned Judges held it was not, even though in some other decisions it had been held to be an “article of food.”
S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004
4
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the assessing authority was perfectly justified. There is no basis on which the Tribunal could have taken a different view.
In such circumstances, we allow this sales tax revision and answer the questions of law framed by the Revenue against the assessee and in favour of
the Revenue.
( H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE
vns
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sweets such as Jilebi and Laddu manufactured and sold by hotels are cooked food exempted under Entry 12 of the Third Schedule.
Whether Jilebi and Laddu fall under Entry 20 of the First Schedule and are taxable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Philips Smith & Others v. Additional Sales tax OfficerExplained¶37
Philips Smith & Others v. Additional Sales tax Officer (1984 KLT 483)
Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales TaxApplied¶42
Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [(1981) 48 STC 254]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Kerala
Lakshmi Vilas Boarding and Loadling
H.L. Dattu
K.M. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
