Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

December 2015

Sales Tax – Pulp based Drink – Known as “Slice” – Predominantly Contained Water – Not a Food Article Within the Meaning of Entry 47 of Schedule I, Section – 4(1)(a)(d) and Entry 47 of Schedule I of The Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975

By G.G.Goyal, Chartered Accountant
Janak Vaghani , Chartered Accountant
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
8. M/S. Varun Beverages Ltd vs. Commissioner of Vat, [2003] 62 VST 388 (Delhi)

Sales Tax – Pulp based Drink – Known as “Slice” – Predominantly Contained Water – Not a Food Article Within the Meaning of Entry 47 of Schedule I, Section – 4(1)(a)(d) and Entry 47 of Schedule I of The Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975

FACTS

The appellant trades in aerated drinks, mineral water and fruit pulp based drink known as “slice”. It sought to deposit sales tax at 8% under residual entry on the basis that “slice” is not a preserved food article thus not covered by entry 47 of Schedule I of the Act. The department on the other hand treated it as food article and levied tax @12% under entry 47 of Schedule I of the Act. The appellant filed appeal up to Tribunal without any success. The appellant thereafter filed appeal before The Delhi High Court against the decision of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal filed by it.

HELD

There is no reference under the Delhi Sales Tax Act imposing definition contained in The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and reliance by the Tribunal on it was misplaced. The predominant content of the Mango Pulp Drink is water i.e. 70 % and the Mango Pulp content is 17%. This product does not claimed to be a fruit juice and therefore the revenue cannot urge that it has even a minimum modicum of nutritive properties. Arguably, if the product was entirely milk based, the consideration might have been different. However, the mango pulp based drink, at best an instant energy giver and in all cases a thirst quencher; by no stretch of imagination can it be called a “food article” at least not within the contemplation of the statute, by an application of the common parlance test. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the company and held that the impugned product is not covered by entry 47 of Schedule I of the Act as “preserved food article” and taxable at 8% under residual entry.

You May Also Like