Allowed

Intelligence Officer (Ib) v. S.S.D Oil Mill

Kerala HC3 Oct 2012RP/816/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the High Court of Kerala recalled its earlier judgment in S.S.D. Oil Mills which held that margarine tax was covered under Apex Court instructions. The court found the issue requires reconsideration due to different statutory provisions in the KVAT Act and the existing Division Bench decision taxing margarine at the higher rate.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was allowed and the previous judgment passed by the court was recalled.

Intelligence Officer (Ib) Vs S.S.D Oil Mill — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`

¶5

RP.No. 816 of 2012 (P)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.11546/2012 DATED 30-05-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):

¶8

1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024.

¶9

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 024.

¶10

3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶11

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶13

S.S.D OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED, DOOR NO.42/1149/A, C.B.TOWER, K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER CUM AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI.MADHAVAN PILLAI .T. AGED 57 YEARS.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶18

¶19

R.P.No.816 OF 2012 IN W.P.(c) No. 11546 of 2012

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2012

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of virtually allowing the same, on the submission that the issue was squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Aluva Sugar Agency v. State of Kerala ( 45 VST 1). The dispute was mainly with regard to the rate of tax in respect of the commodity by name 'Margarine', whether it will attract tax @ 4% or at the higher rate of 12.5% . The Apex Court held that the commodity was an 'edible oil' and hence it would attract tax only at a lesser rate of 4% .

¶24

The review petition has been filed by the State pointing out that the decision rendered by the Apex court was with reference to the relevant provisions of the KGST Act, where there was no specific entry with regard to 'Margarine'. But the position has taken a different turn, by virtue of the relevant provisions in the KVAT Act, where this particular commodity 'Margarine' has been separately given at Entry

¶25

RP.No.816/2012 2

¶26

No. 64, attracting higher rate of tax.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the black and white difference between the statutory prescriptions under the KGST Act [ considered by the Apex Court in Aluva Sugar Agency v. State of Kerala ( 45 VST 1)] and the issue involved herein relating to the provisions of the KVAT Act, the matter requires to be reconsidered. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in SSD Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 2011 (37) VST 594 (Ker), whereby it has been categorically held that this particular commodity ( Margarine) will attract tax at the higher rate of 12.5%.

¶28

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered . The judgment passed by this Court is recalled and the review petition is allowed. The writ petition will stand posted before the appropriate Bench next week.

¶29

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶30

sv.

¶31

RP.No.816/2012 3

¶32

RP.No.816/2012 4

Intelligence Officer (Ib) v. S.S.D Oil Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intelligence Officer (Ib) v. S.S.D Oil Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Mercator Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust

Shri.M.a.K.Azad Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Iind Circle, Trippunithura

G.Thankappan Vs the Kayamkulam Municipality

Siby Jose Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Kerala Judicial Ministerial Gazetted Officer Association Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar.M. Vs State of Kerala