High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 08 KL CK 0085

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs State of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 August 2010 · Citation: (2010) 3 KLJ 123 : (2010) 3 KLT 789 : (2011) 37 VST 549

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.S. Gopinathan, J · C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J
CASE NUMBER
O.T. Rev. No''s. 32 and 45 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 304 words

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The question raised is with regard to rate of tax on the various items of gold coins and medallions sold by the appellant during the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 (upto 30.6.2006). Articles are all minted products of 22 ct. and 24 ct. gold pieces, some in heart-shape, some with embossed picture of Goddess Lakshmi and some with God Ganesa and certain others with names and logos of various companies engaged in production and marketing of goods along with it gold coins offered as incentives. The case of the appellant is that all items are covered under the head "bullion" coming under item 1 of Second Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, Government Pleader referred to our judgment in M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner, O.T Appeal No. 5 of 2010 dated 13-7-2010 wherein we have held that these articles are semi finished gold articles falling under entry 4(4) of Third Schedule to the KVAT Act. Gold coins in that case were in rectangular bars. However, in these cases, the items are embossed with pictures of Goddess Lakshmi, God Ganesa, etc. It is common knowledge that these items are not used as raw material for making ornaments but are fitted with hookes and are worn by ladies. So much so, the products sold by the assessee will fall under entry 4(4) of Third Schedule to the KVAT Act for levy of tax. Assessment at 12.5 per cent treating the items as falling under the residuary entry and confirmed by the Tribunal is incorrect. Following our judgment in the above case, O.T. Appeal No. 5 of 2010, we allow the revisions in part by directing assessment of entire turnover of all the above items at 4% as against 12.5% assessed by the department and confirmed by the Tribunal.