Case Details: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd. (2025) 35 Centax 282 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP. with Shri Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Ishaan V. Patkar with Vinit V. Raje, Durgesh G. Desai, Yeshwant J. Patil i/b. Jindagi Shah, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in supplying the product ‘Byozyme’, contended that the goods were classifiable as fertiliser under entry C-I-4 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was recorded that the department had not led any evidence to demonstrate that the product could be treated as a ‘plant growth promoter’, whereas the assessee had produced expert evidence supporting its claim that Byozyme functioned as a fertiliser. The assessee also submitted material relating to trade parlance, including letters from agriculturists, and pointed out that excise authorities had classified the same product as fertiliser. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the onus to establish that goods fall within a particular tariff entry rests upon the department, and such onus had not been discharged. The Court observed that no evidence had been produced to substantiate the classification of Byozyme as a plant growth promoter, while the assessee had furnished expert and trade-parlance evidence supporting the classification as a fertiliser. The Court further noted the relevance of the excise classification, identifying the product as a fertiliser rather than as a plant growth promoter. The High Court accordingly held that Byozyme is classifiable under entry C-I-4 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as a fertiliser.
List of Cases Cited
- G. Ventakasami Naidu & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax — 1959 (35) ITR 594 — Relied on [Paras 17, 18, 19]
- Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 6, 10, 13]
