38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, August 27, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Bread And Rusk Are Different, Vat Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court

By Jhanak Sharma      19 March, 2022 09:14 PM      0 Comments
Bread And Rusk Vat Exemption Available Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has declared that rusk is not bread and that the state of Meghalaya's VAT exemption for bread must be granted to rusk as well.

FACTS 

The petitioner manufactures a product that is generically known as rusk. Rusk is a form of toasted bread that, unlike untoasted bread which is soft, is crunchy and it is consumed more as a biscuit than as bread or even toasted bread. Bread is exempted from value added tax in the State. The petitioner passed off its product as a form of bread and took advantage of the exemption. Upon the Department regarding rusk as different from bread and seeking to impose VAT under the miscellaneous entry which pertains to unspecified products, the petitioner challenged the same. At the end of the adjudication at three levels before the Department and the Board of Revenue, the petitioner failed to impress the authorities that rusk had to be treated as bread and permitted the exemption. Hence, the present revision. 

ISSUE

whether the product rusk was liable to be treated as bread and extended the benefit of exemption from VAT that bread enjoys in the State.

CONTENTIONS 

At first blush, the argument put forth by the petitioner appears to be attractive; after all, it is nobodys case that the petitioner buys bread from the market and manufactures rusk therefrom.

As per the submission of the petitioner rusk , is also a form of bread as it is in the nature of toasted bread .

 The petitioner further begs to state that the item Rusk is nothing but a form of bread and is in the nature of toasted bread and there is no manufacturing process that can be said to have taken place making the item rusk as separate from bread. Rusk is a form of bread which can last longer as its moisture content is reduced by toasting the sliced bread to a given specification. After the preparation of bread is completed, the process of its conversion into rusk begins by slicing the bread into small pieces which are then dried/toasted in an oven to form rusk so that the moisture of the bread comes down to a given specification. For the purpose of preparing rusk, neither any ingredients are added to bread nor, the chemical composition of bread gets changed in any manner. Rusk is prepared by simply drying/toasting the bread and therefore, by no stretch of imagination rusk can be treated as anything other than bread.

Furthermore ,  the petitioning-assessee, reliance has been placed on the landmark judgments mentioned below :

In the case of Kayani and Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and (1978)[1] the question that fell for determination was whether double roti, shirmal, parata and chapathi etc., can be called bread for the purpose of attracting sales tax thereon.

The Honble High Court said that in Kayani and Co., the Supreme Court refused to presume that the legislature had intended the word bread to imply the article of food going by that description in European countries and held that roti, shirmal, parata and chapathi and the like in this country had to be seen to be included within the meaning of the word bread in the relevant entry.

Secondly in the case of  Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh [2] the Supreme Court considered whether parched rice and puffed rice were distinct from rice within the meaning of the relevant entry for different rates of sales tax to be applicable to parched rice and puffed rice than that applicable to ordinary rice.  The Honble Court held that the Court applied the dictum in the judgment to hold that merely because chemical changes had been brought about in parched rice and puffed rice, it would not imply that such varieties cease to be rice within the meaning of the relevant entry. 

On the other hand the , state placed reliance on different cases firstly in the case of Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries v. Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) [3] in which the court held that, the issue was whether ordinary cotton and surgical cotton could be regarded to be the same for the purpose of sales tax or VAT. Also in the landmark case of Vasantham Foundry v. Union of India [4] the question that arose was whether cast iron in the list of declared goods in the relevant statute would include cast iron casting.

Just  as the Supreme Court held in Vasantham Foundry that cast iron casting could not be regarded as cast iron since the manufactured cast iron was subjected to a further process of manufacture to be converted into cast iron castings, in the present case, the same ingredients that go into the manufacture of bread may, doubtless, be used by the petitioner but upon bread being manufactured by the petitioner, the petitioner subjects such bread to a further process of manufacturing activity to arrive at its finished product of rusk. Quite obviously, some value is added to bread to make it into rusk and that would attract VAT.

The Honble Court said that the final products were not cast iron but the cast iron produced by the assessee was subjected to a further process of manufacture to be converted into pipes or manhole covers or bends. 

JUDGEMENT  

After hearing the contentions of both the  sides the Honble Court observed that by  applying the common parlance test in this case, the question that arises is whether a person desirous of buying bread would ask for rusk or whether a person who goes to a shop and asks for rusk would be given bread in its place. The answer is obvious: bread is bread and rusk is rusk and never may the twain be equated

Accordingly, there is no flaw found in the appellate judgment and order under revision and no ground seen for interfering therewith. [5]

Case Tittle M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Meghalaya & ors 

Citation:  Case No.: CRP No.32/2019 with MC (CRP) No
Counsel For Petitioner: Senior Advocate A Saraf 

Counsel For Respondent: Advocate General A Kumar
 


[1] (1953) 4 STC 387

[2] (1978) 2 SCC 552

[3] (2014) 4 SCC 87

[4] (1995) 5 SCC 289

[5] http://164.100.166.51/meghalaya/orders/2019/210200000322019_11.pdf

 



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Plea for the Status of Hindus, Niam Khasi, Niam Tynrai, and Songsarek to be heard by Meghalaya High Court Plea for the Status of Hindus, Niam Khasi, Niam Tynrai, and Songsarek to be heard by Meghalaya High Court

It also mentioned the poor facility of the state in endeavoring to eliminate inequality in status, facility, and opportunity under Article 38(2) of the Constitution. As per the latest update, the highest Court has dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the equivalent Court. Status of Hindus, Niam Khasi, Niam Tynrai, Songsarek, Meghalaya High Court

Rubbing Male Organ On Vagina Or Urethra Over Victim's Underpants Amounts To Rape: Meghalaya High Court Rubbing Male Organ On Vagina Or Urethra Over Victim's Underpants Amounts To Rape: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court upheld a rape conviction under Section 375(b) IPC, ruling that even partial penetration qualifies as rape. The case involved a minor victim who alleged the accused rubbed his genitalia against her underwear.

Bread And Rusk Are Different, Vat Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court Bread And Rusk Are Different, Vat Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court ruled that rusk, being distinct from bread due to additional manufacturing processes, does not qualify for the VAT exemption granted to bread.

Meghalaya High Court Suggests Army To Conduct Surprise Checks On Its Vehicles To Prevent Possible Drug Trafficking Meghalaya High Court Suggests Army To Conduct Surprise Checks On Its Vehicles To Prevent Possible Drug Trafficking

The Meghalaya High Court, in M Kharkongor vs. State of Meghalaya March 30, 2022, addressed allegations of drug trafficking using Army vehicles.

TRENDING NEWS

sc-sets-up-sit-on-allegations-against-anant-ambani-vantara
Trending CelebStreet
SC sets up SIT on allegations against Anant Ambani's Vantara [Read Order]

SC forms SIT led by ex-judge J Chelameswar to probe allegations of illegal animal acquisition, mistreatment & financial irregularities at Anant Ambani’s Vantara.

26 August, 2025 01:57 PM
sc-deplores-high-courts-for-delaying-judgments-over-a-year
Trending Judiciary
SC Deplores High Courts for Delaying Judgments Over a Year [Read Judgment]

SC slams delay: Supreme Court deplores HCs for not delivering judgments for over a year after reserving cases, eroding faith in justice.

26 August, 2025 05:17 PM

TOP STORIES

setback-for-wb-govt-sc-dismisses-review-petition-in-teachers-recruitment-scam-case
Trending Judiciary
'Setback for WB govt,' SC dismisses review petition in teachers’ recruitment scam case [Read Order]

SC dismisses WB govt’s review plea in teachers’ recruitment scam; upholds invalidation of 25,753 tainted appointments to protect selection purity.

21 August, 2025 02:09 PM
sc-dismisses-plea-against-suspension-of-toll-collection-due-to-poor-road-upkeep-long-traffic-jam
Trending Judiciary
SC dismisses plea against suspension of toll collection due to poor road upkeep, long traffic jam [Read Order]

SC upholds Kerala HC order halting toll at Paliyekkara over poor highway upkeep, traffic jams, citing citizens’ plight, fuel wastage & environment.

21 August, 2025 02:47 PM
caste-abuse-at-home-doesnt-attract-scst-act-applicable-only-in-public-view-telangana-hc
Trending Judiciary
Caste Abuse at Home Doesn’t Attract SC/ST Act, Applicable Only in ‘Public View’: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Telangana HC quashes SC/ST Act case in marital dispute, ruling caste abuse at home doesn’t qualify—Act applies only in ‘public view’.

21 August, 2025 02:55 PM
sc-raises-alimony-from-rs-15-lakh-to-rs-50-lakh-for-m-tech-wife-as-doctor-husband-got-capacity-to-pay
Trending Judiciary
SC raises alimony from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 50 lakh for M Tech wife as doctor husband got capacity to pay [Read Judgment]

SC enhances alimony to ₹50 lakh for M Tech wife, stressing balance between doctor husband’s capacity to pay and wife’s needs.

21 August, 2025 03:32 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email