SAJ FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,CJ. -
(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. challenging the judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal i.e., Meghalaya Board of Revenue, Shillong whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 23.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Meghalaya, Shillong, has been dismissed, upholding decision of the Commissioner of Taxes that the item 'Rusk' has to be treated as taxable item under residuary entry of Schedule IV of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act of 2003') rather than treating it as an exempted item under the specific entry of 'Branded Bread' specified under Entry 57 of Schedule I of the Act of 2003.
(2.) The facts of case are that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the trade of items such as biscuits, cakes, cookies, rusk bread and other bakery and confectionery products within the State of Meghalaya. It is registered as a dealer in the State of Meghalaya under the Act of 2003 under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Taxes, Circle- II, Shillong. The petitioner was assessed to tax and interest vide assessment order dated 06.06.2013 by the Assessing Authority namely, the Superintendent of Taxes, Circle-13, Shillong, for nine quarters ending 31.03.2011 to 31.03.2013 whereby, tax was levied on item 'Rusk'. The case set up by the petitioner before the Assessing Authority was that 'Rusk' is a form of 'bread' and is an exempted item falling under the category of 'Bread' under Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 with NIL rate of tax. The Assessing Authority however, taking recourse to the definition of 'manufacture' under the Act of 2003, levied tax on 'Rusk' under the residuary entry of Schedule-IV at the rate of 13.5% instead of treating it as an exempted product in Schedule-I under the entry 'Bread'. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Authority failed to appreciate that rusk is a form of bread and is in the nature of toasted bread and does not involve any manufacturing process.
(3.) The petitioner preferred a Revision Petition against the order of the Assessing Authority before the Commissioner of Taxes, Meghalaya, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2015. The petitioner then preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal i.e., the Meghalaya Board of Revenue, under Section 69 of the Act of 2003 which was contested by the respondents who filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The Meghalaya Board of Revenue upheld the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 23.01.2015 and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.12.2015. The petitioner then filed review petition before the Meghalaya Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2019.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.