Case: Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs. State Of Karnataka

1. The appellant is a public limited company having a tea manufacturing unit at Dharwad and various other units which also manufacture tea. The tea manufactured by the appellant is of three types, namely, packet tea, tea in tea bags, and quick brewing black tea. It is claimed that the Dharwad Unit, as opposed to the other units manufacturing tea, is a new unit and is, therefore, exempt altogether from payment of entry tax on packing material of tea under a notification dated 31.3.1993 issued under Section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as theInsofar as the other units are concerned, it is the case of the appellant they are covered by Explanation II to a Notification dated 23.9.1998 issued under Section 3 of the said Act, andng covered by the said Explanation would entitle them to pay entry tax at the rate of 1% and not 2%. In these appeals, we are concerned with three assessment years 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1996-1997.All the authorities under the Entry Tax Act i.e. the Assessing Authority, the First Appellate Authority and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal have held that packing material cannot be regarded as raw material, component parts or inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods and, therefore, in the context of the Entry Tax Act read with Schedule I, such packing material is neither exempt nor chargeable at the rate of 1% on a true construction of the aforesaid notifications of 1993 and 1998. The High Court in turn has dismissed the revision petitions filed under the statute by the assessee following their own judgment in Nestle India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 22.3.2006. This is how the appellants have come before us in the present civil

Reasoning:
there is no such Explanation II contained in the exemption notification dated 31.3.1993. This being the case, if we were to accept the case of the appellants, they would be liable to tax at the rate of 1% under the 1998 notification but would not be exempt under the 1993 notification, thus rendering the same packing material liable to tax at the rate of 2% in the case of the Dharwad unit and 1% in the case of all other units. This would lead to an anomalous situation which can best be avoided by not accepting the argument on behalf of the appellants.14. Equally, the argument based on Section 5A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is fallacious in that it is only for the purpose ofat packing materials are included, and forms a separate scheme of taxation under the Sales Tax statute. We cannot accede to the argument that de hors the context of the Entry Tax Act, we should accept that industrial inputs include packing materials and that therefore, by parity of reasoning,under the Entry Tax Act should also include packing material. This argument has therefore correctly been turned down by the High Court of Karnataka in the Nestle case.It only remains to deal with the argument made on behalf of the appellant based on the Tea Marketing Control Order. Needless to add, a manufacturer for the purpose of the said Order is specifically a person who produces value added products commercially known as tea. The context of the said definition is for the purpose of registering manufacturers or producers and buyers of tea, having relevance therefore to the sale aspect of tea. As has already been held by us, the context of entry tax being different, we are afraid this argument also does not avail the appellant.22. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was correct in following its own earlier Division Bench judgment in the Nestle case.