The popular mosquito repellent – Good Knight – manufactured and marketed by Godrej Sara Lee Limited, is a classified ‘insecticide’ and 4 per cent Odisha Value Added Tax Act is applicable for the product instead of 12.5 per cent tax, the Orissa High Court has ordered.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr S Muralidhar and Justice MS Raman upheld the earlier order in this regard pronounced on 17 March, 2021 of the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack Bench.
The HC Division Bench dismissed the application moved by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, seeking 12.5 per cent taxation on the product in ‘all other goods’ category.
The counsel for the manufacturer pointed out that it has a certificate of registration of insecticides under Section 9 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for the manufacture of the insecticide transfluthrin, 1.6% w/w in liquid vaporizers.
“The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST) and the Tribunal have concurrently held that the product in question is in fact an insecticide within the meaning of that expression in Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B and, therefore, amendable to tax @ 4% thereby rejecting the plea of the Department that it should be classified as ‘all other goods’ in terms of Part III of Schedule B of the OVAT Act, amenable to tax at 12.5%”, the order said.
The literature accompanying the product, which has been enclosed with the present revision petition, reveals that one of the principal ingredients of the product is ‘Transfluthrin 0.88% w/w Liquid Vaporiser’. It is explained in the said literature that Transfluthrin 0.88% w/w Liquid “is an effective insecticide recommended for the control of adult mosquitoes in the household”.
“It is evident therefore, that the product sold by the Godrej Sara Lee Limited has been correctly categorized as an ‘insecticide’ under Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B of the OVAT Act. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that no error has been committed either by the ACST or the Tribunal in accepting the plea of the dealer (Godrej) and negating the contrary plea of the Department”, the division bench ruled.