Rusk is not bread: Meghalaya High Court refuses VAT exemption for rusk

Rusk is not bread: Meghalaya High Court refuses VAT exemption for rusk The Meghalaya High Court ruled in the case of Sahaj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs…

Rusk is not bread: Meghalaya High Court refuses VAT exemption for rusk
The Meghalaya High Court ruled in the case of Sahaj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Meghalaya and Others, that the state’s VAT exemption for bread cannot be extended to rusk since rusk is not the same as bread.
Rusk is the generic name for the product that the petitioner makes. Rusk is a type of toasted bread that, unlike soft untoasted bread, is crunchy, and is eaten more like a biscuit than bread or even toasted bread. In the state of Meghalaya, bread is exempt from value added tax. The Petitioner took advantage of the exemption by passing off its goods as bread. The petitioner contested the Department's classification of rusk as distinct from bread and its attempt to levy VAT under the miscellaneous entry, which applies to undefined products. The petitioner failed to persuade the authorities that rusk existed at the end of three stages of adjudication before the Department and the Board of Revenue. The petitioner failed to persuade the authorities that rusk had to be classified as bread at the end of three stages of adjudication before the Department and the Board of Revenue, and the exemption was granted.
According to a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh, the petitioner’s company puts bread to further manufacturing activity to prepare rusk, thus adding value to draw VAT.
“The identical components that go into the creation of bread may, surely, be employed by the petitioner,” the Court noted, “but after the petitioner manufactures bread, the petitioner subjects such bread to a second process of manufacturing activity to arrive at its finished product of rusk.”
As a result, bread is bread, and rusk is rusk, and the two cannot be equated, according to the Court.
At the beginning of the proceeding owing to the unreasonable delay since the State’s 2015 ruling denying him VAT exemption, the Bench elaborated on the petitioner’s, a rusk manufacturing company’s, maintainability of the revision petition.
It did so on the grounds that can be summed up as follows:
- The petitioner had gone to the wrong forum at first, but this was not done on purpose or maliciously.
- The provisions of the Meghalaya VAT Act do not clearly prohibit the High Court from tolerating such delays.
My Recent Articles
- 5% GST applicable on Superior Kerosene Oil along with other charges supplied under Public Distribution System: AAR
- An agent Licensed to supply Kerosene Oil cannot be regarded as a fair price shop: AAR
- Demand order set-aside by CESTAT where the SCN is not issued by Proper Officer under Sec 28 of the Customs Act
- New Excise Policy: The Delhi High Court is seeking the Delhi government’s position on the formation of a committee to identify conforming and non-conforming wards
- GST Interest Liability cannot be raised without Initiating Adjudication process If dispute in raised by Assessee: Jharkhand HC
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts











