MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A failed effort on the part of the Revenue to bring to tax coconut oil sold in branded form and in containers as a toilet article, i. e. , as hair oil subject to tax under entry No. 10 of Part of the second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") at the rate of 15 per cent as against the rate of four per cent claimed by the very petitioner-assessee as an edible oil taxable at four per cent in entry No. 1 of Part "e" of the Second Schedule to the Act in which effort the Revenue failed in terms of the judgment of this court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Marico Industries Ltd, reported in [2001] 124 STC 196, has given rise to the present legislation by introduction of entry No. 17-A in Part "c" of the Second Schedule to the Act, with effect from April 1, 2001 by Act 5 of 2001 which is again challenged by the petitioner-dealer on the ground that the Legislature by introduction of this entry subjected coconut oil sold under a brand name to tax at a higher rate in comparison to other edible oils though sold under a brand name as under entry No. 1 of Part "e" of the Second Schedule to the Act has been discriminatory, violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and liable to be declared as unconstitutional.

(2.) IT is this challenge thrown by the petitioner-dealer registered under the provisions of the Act which is required to be met by the respondent-State in this writ petition.

(3.) THE sole ground of attack on the validity of the legislation rather the change in law brought about by Act No. 5 of 2001 is that it is one resulting in invidious discrimination as against coconut oil sold or marketed in a branded form and in containers whether sachets, bottles or plastic cans is alone subjected to differential treatment vis-a-vis all other edible oils that are marketed in similar fashion. It is the act of the Legislature in singling out branded coconut oil for levy of tax at the rate of 15 per cent from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002 and at 20 per cent with effect from April 1, 2002 to July 31, 2004 in terms of Act 5 of 2001 as against levy of tax on other edible oils at four per cent for major part of this period and at five per cent for the period from June 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 which has given rise to the present round of litigation and this writ petition.