IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OT.Appeal.No. 4 of 2006 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER NO.C7.13216/2006/CT of COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: ------------- KARAMCHAND APPLIANCES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.72, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT: ---------------- COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, POST OFFICE BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(TAXES), SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS OTHER TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.T.A. No. 4 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. This appeal, though originally was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2006, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment and restored the matter to file of this Court for reconsideration with reference to Rules of Interpretation appended to Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter called the "Act". We have today disposed of connected case, O.T.A.No.6 of 2006, partly allowing the appeal and partly rejecting the same. All the products of the appellant styled under the brand Allout are mosquito repellents in the form of mat, liquid refill bottle and coil. Following our judgment in O.T.A.No.6 of 2006, we declare that the products of the appellant, namely, Allout refill, Allout Mat and Allout Coil, fall under Entry 44 (5) of Third Schedule to the Act. However, we find difference in respect of Allout Combipack which is a combination of electrical 2 device with bottle of mosquito repellent in liquid form. Liquid bottle is attached to an electrical device which when connected to the electric circuit evaporates and spreads the repellent repelling the mosquitoes. In fact it is due to electrical heating through this device that repellent in liquid form evaporates and spreads repelling mosquito. While the repellent in the bottle is covered by Entry 44(5), the electrical device along with bottle of repellent will not fall under Entry 44(5) of Third Schedule to the Act. It is conceded that the price of the machine is Rs. 18/- and that of bottle of repellent is around Rs. 40/-. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that the item is to be classified as repellent because the main component of the price is attributable to repellent, we are unable to accept this argument because Rs. 18/- per machine is not insignificant when compared to the price of bottle of repellent which is Rs. 40/-. In fact, repellent is separately sold by the company without the machine. Therefore there is no difficulty for the assessee and for the Assessing Officer to bifurcate the turnover and assess the tax on the sale of repellents under Entry 44(5) at 4% and the machine at the applicable rate under Entry 66 of SRO 82/2006. We 3 make it clear that this judgment does not apply for the period after the amendment whereunder HSN No. 3808 is removed from Entry 44(5) of Third Schedule to the Act. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk