M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.

                          [2023] 4 S.C.R. 63                               63


            M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.                             A
                                   v.
        COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010)
                           APRIL 10, 2023                                  B

         [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
       Kerala VAT Act, 2003 – s. 6(1)(d), Entry No.44(5)of the III
Schedule – Entry 27(4) and 66 of notification SRO 82/06 –
Appellant’s case that the products (i) Mosquito Mats, Coils and            C
Vaporizers; and (ii) Mortein Insect Killers; (iii) Harpic Toilet Cleaner
and Lizol Floor Cleaners were classifiable under Entry No. 44(5)
of the III Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act as being ‘pesticides,
insecticides’ corresponding to HSN Code 3808 and therefore subject
to VAT at the rate of 4% – With respect to the product at (iv) Dettol
Antiseptic Liquid, it was the case on behalf of the appellant that         D
‘Dettol Antiseptic Liquid’ is correctly classifiable under Entry 36(8)
(h) (vi) being medicaments corresponding to HSN Code 3004.90 of
the III Schedule, and thus also subject to tax at the rate of 4% –
Held: It is required to be noted that HSN Code 3808 has been deleted
from Entry 44(5) w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and from 21.01.2006 the aforesaid       E
products would fall under Sl. No.66 namely ‘Mosquito repellant’,
which is the specific entry and subject to VAT at 12.5% – Therefore,
Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers and Mortein Insect Killers
products shall not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) as insecticides
– Further, after introduction of SRO 82/06 w.e.f. 22.01.2006 the
Harpic and Lizol would fall under Sl. No. 27(4) of SRO 82/06. Sl.          F
No.27(4) thus is a specific entry – What is required to be considered
is the dominant use which is cleaning and removal of stains of floor
and the toilet – Thereafter, the same shall not fall under Entry 44(5)
– HSN Code No.3808 as insecticides or disinfectant – Entry 27(4)
of SRO No. 82 of 2006 is with respect to stain busters, stain removers,    G
abir, blue and all kinds of cleaning powder and liquids including
floor and toilet cleaning – Therefore, Harpic and Lizol shall not be
classifiable under Entry 44(5) and shall be classifiable under Entry
27(4) of SRO 82/2006 chargeable to tax at 12.5% – As far as (iv)
Dettol Antiseptic Liquid is concerned, Dettol is used as an antiseptic
                                                                           H
                                  63
64            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A    and is used in hospitals for surgical use, medical use and midwifery
     due to therapeutic & prophylactic properties the same would fall
     under Entry 36(8) (h) (vi) as claimed by the appellant.
           Interpretation of Statute – Principles of classification which
     are fundamental to any matter relating to classification under the
B    taxing statute are: (a) Plain meaning to be given to the taxing
     provision; (b) burden to prove classification in a particular entry is
     always on the Revenue; (c) any ambiguity has to be resolved in
     favour of the assessee and in case of a reasonable doubt, the
     construction most beneficial to the assessee must be adopted; (d)
     specific entry would override a residuary entry; and (e) resort to
C    residuary entry is to be taken as a last measure, only when by liberal
     construction the specific entry cannot cover the goods in question.
           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1. It is required to be noted that HSN Code 3808
D    has been deleted from Entry 44(5) w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and from
     21.01.2006 the aforesaid products would fall under Sl. No.66
     namely ‘Mosquito repellant’, which is the specific entry and
     subject to VAT at 12.5%. The insecticides under Entry 44(5)
     therefore can be said to be a general entry. Once there is a specific
     entry the ‘Mosquito Repellant’, thereafter one is not required to
E    go to the definition under another Act namely Insecticides Act.
     Sl.No.66 of Notification SRO 82/06 dated 21.01.2006 issued under
     Section 6(1)(d) of the Kerala VAT Act which covers “Mosquito
     Repellants”. [Para 9][74-H; 75-A-B]
           2. It is required to be noted that Entry 44(5) which includes
F    insecticides relates to products operations. In the present case
     under the KVAT Act there is a specific Entry Mosquito repellant
     so far as the product electric or electronic mosquito repellents,
     gadgets and insect repellents, devices and parts and accessories
     therefore the thereof said are specific concerned entry shall and
G    be applicable in any case, the same cannot be said to be
     insecticides. The view taken by the High Court is right that
     Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers and Mortein Insect Killers
     products shall not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) as insecticides.
     [Para 9.1][75-B-D]

H
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                     65
            COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.

      3. It is required to be noted that after introduction of SRO     A
82/06 w.e.f. 22.01.2006 the Harpic and Lizol would fall under Sl.
No. 27(4) of SRO 82/06. Sl. No.27(4) thus is a specific entry. [Para
9.3][75-G-H]
      4. Considering the dominant use of Dettol and the active
ingredients of Dettol referred to hereinabove and that the Dettol      B
is used as an antiseptic and is used in hospitals for surgical use,
medical use and midwifery due to therapeutic & prophylactic
properties the same would fall under Entry 36(8) (h) (vi) as
claimed by the appellant and would not fall under the residuary
entry as claimed by the Revenue. [Para 9.10][78-B]                     C
      5. As per the settled position of law while considering a
particular entry the principles of classification which are
fundamental to any matter relating to classification under the
taxing statute are: (a) plain meaning to be given to the taxing
provision; (b) burden to prove classification in a particular entry    D
is always on the Revenue; (c) any ambiguity has to be resolved in
favour of the assessee and in case of a reasonable doubt, the
construction most beneficial to the assessee must be adopted;
(d) specific entry would override a residuary entry; and (e) resort
to residuary entry is to be taken as a last measure, only when by      E
liberal construction the specific entry cannot cover the goods in
question. [Para 9.8][77-D-G]
      Ponds India Ltd. vs. CTT (2008) 8 SCC 369 : [2008] 9
      SCR 496; Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 1995
      Supp. (2) SCC 646 : [1995] 3 SCR 369; ICPA Health                F
      Products (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara (2004) 4 SCC 481
      : [2004] 1 Supp. SCR 409; Sujanil Chemo Industries
      vs. CCE & Customs, Pune (2005) 4 SCC 189; Sonic
      Electrochem vs. STO (1998) 6 SCC 397 : [1998] 3 SCR
      1102 – referred to.
                                                                       G
      Knight Queen Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP, 2005
      SCC Online All 1214; Order dated 14.07.2006 passed
      by Supreme Court in State of UP vs. Knight Queen

                                                                       H
66             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           Industries Pvt. Ltd.; Ashok Agencies vs. State of
            Karnataka 2008 SCC Online Kar 141; State of
            Karnataka vs. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (2014)
            80 Kar LJ 328; Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. vs. State
            of Andhra Pradesh (Tax Revision Case No.10 of 2007,
            Andhra Pradesh High Court); Reckitt Benckiser India
B
            Ltd. vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer & Ors.
            (STR-11/2012, Rajasthan High Court) – referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
     [2008] 9 SCR 496                     referred to                 Para 4.4
C
     [1995] 3 SCR 369                     referred to                 Para 4.7
     [2004] 1 Supp. SCR 409              referred to                  Para 4.12
     [1998] 3 SCR 1102                    referred to                 Para 6

D          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1335
     of 2010.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2008 of the High Court
     of Kerala at Ernakulam in OTA No. 6 of 2006.
           Siddharth Bawa, R. Jawahar Lal, Anuj Garg, Mohit Sharma,
E    Brajkishore Mishra, Ms. Aparna Jha, Advs. for the Appellant.
           C. K. Sasi, Abdulla Naseeh V. T., Ms. Meena K. Poulose, R.
     Sathish, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F           M. R. SHAH, J.
           1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
     and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
     Ernakulam in OT Appeal No.6 of 2006 by which the High Court has
     dismissed the said appeal and has upheld the order passed by the
G    Commissioner with respect to the classification of the goods in question,
     the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
            2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue pertains to
     the classification of the appellant’s products namely (i) Mosquito Mats,
     Coils and Vaporizers; and (ii) Mortein Insect Killers; (iii) Harpic Toilet
H
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                              67
     COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners; and (iv) Dettol Antiseptic Liquid for         A
the purposes of Kerala VAT Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “KVAT
Act”). It was the case on behalf of the appellant that the products at (i)
to (iii) were classifiable under Entry No. 44(5) of the III Schedule to the
Kerala VAT Act as being ‘pesticides, insecticides’ corresponding to HSN
Code 3808 and therefore subject to VAT at the rate of 4%. With respect
                                                                                B
to the product at (iv) hereinabove, it was the case on behalf of the
appellant that ‘Dettol Antiseptic Liquid’ is correctly classifiable under
Entry 36(8) (h) (vi) being medicaments corresponding to HSN Code
3004.90 of the III Schedule, and thus also subject to tax at the rate of
4%.
                                                                                C
       2.1 However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, rejected
the contention of the appellant holding that the products (i) Mortein
Mosquito Coil, Mat and Liquid Vaporizer is classifiable under Entry 66
of Notification SRO 82/06 dated 21.01.2006 issued under Section
6(1)(d) of the Kerala VAT Act which covers “Mosquito Repellants,
electric or electronic mosquito repellants, gadgets and insect repellants,      D
devices and parts and accessories thereof” corresponding to HSN Code
8516 79 20; (ii) Mortein Insect Killer is subject to tax at the rate of
12.5% under the residuary entry i.e. under SL No.103 of the
Notification SRO 82/06 on the ground that they are not specifically
classifiable under the Second and the Third Schedule; (iii) Harpic Toilet       E
Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaner are classifiable under SI No. 27(4) of
the said Notification SRO 82/06; and (iv) Dettol Antiseptic Liquid is
classifiable under Entry 103 of the said Notification SRO 82/06 i.e.
residual entry on the ground that the said product is not in the nature of
a medicine having therapeutic or prophylactic properties, but is used
only for cleaning purposes.                                                     F

       2.2 The order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
holding the above was the subject matter of appeal before the High
Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed
the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes. The impugned judgment and order passed by the                 G
High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal.
       2.3 Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties the relevant entries relied upon by the respective parties
are required to be referred to which are as under:
                                                                                H
68           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A         “Entry 44 of the Third Schedule reads as follows:




B




C

          (d) Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of the Third Schedule reads as under:



D




E




F




G



          Entry 66 of Notification No. SRO No. 82/2006, G.O.(P) No. 4/
     2006/TD Dated 21st January 2006.
H
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                           69
     COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

                             LIST OF GOODS                                   A




                                                                             B




       3. Shri Siddharth Bawa, learned counsel has appeared on behalf        C
of the appellant and Shri C.K. Sasi, learned counsel has appeared on
behalf of the respondents.
       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the High Court has materially erred in not accepting the case on behalf      D
of the appellant that the products item nos.1 to 3 hereinabove shall be
classifiable under Entry 44(5) of III Schedule of KVAT Act.
      4.1 It is submitted that the High Court has materially erred in
accepting the case on behalf of the Commissioner that the aforesaid
products nos. (i) to (iii) shall fall under Item No.66 of SRO 82/2006 and
                                                                             E
therefore liable to be taxed at 12.5%
      4.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has also erred in
holding that the product Dettol will fall under the residual entry i.e.
Sl.No.103 of SRO 82/2006 and not under Entry 36(8) (h) (vi) of III
Schedule of the KVAT Act.
                                                                             F
       4.3 Now so far as the product Mortein range & Mortein Spray is
concerned, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that even after introduction of SRO 82/2006,
Mortein range & Mortein Spray continue to be classifiable as insecticides,
as they are manufactured under an insecticides license issued under the
Insecticides Act. It is submitted that the Mortein Spray kills insects,      G
hence even according to the respondents’ interpretation, Mortein Spray
cannot fall under Item No.66 of SRO/2006, as Item no.66 deals only
with Mosquito repellants.
      4.4 In support of his submissions learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court   H
70             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A    in the case of Ponds India Ltd. vs. CTT (2008) 8 SCC 369 (Para
     35). He has also relied upon the following decisions of the Allahabad
     High Court and Karnataka High Court; Knight Queen Industries
     Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP, 2005 SCC Online All 1214 (Para 23 to
     36); Sl. No. 22 @ page 282-297; Order dated 14.07.2006 passed
     by this Court in State of UP vs. Knight Queen Industries Pvt. Ltd.;
B
     Sl. No. 23 @ page 298-300; Ashok Agencies vs. State of
     Karnataka 2008 SCC Online Kar 141 (Para 8 to 12); Sl. No. 24 @
     page 301-307; State of Karnataka vs. Godrej Consumer Products
     Ltd. (2014) 80 Kar LJ 328 (Para 15); Sl. No. 25 @ page 308-313.
            4.5 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
C    appellant that it is a case on behalf of the respondents that from
     21.01.2006 Mortein range and Mortein Spray would fall under Sl. No.66
     (mosquito repellant), which is the specific entry and subject to VAT at
     12.5% and insecticide (Entry 44(5) of the III Schedule) is a general
     entry.
D          It is submitted that therefore the issue of classification between
     two competing entries i.e. Entry 44(5)(insecticide) and Sl. No.66
     (mosquito repellant) introduced w.e.f. 21.01.2006. It is submitted that
     therefore according to Revenue, the judgment of the High Court with
     respect of Mortein repellant /Moretin range shall not be applicable, as
E    the entries under the other VAT Acts, do not have a specific entry for
     “mosquito repellents”.
           4.6 It is submitted that however the appellant rightly relied upon
     Entry 44(5) of the said Schedule claiming the tax at 4%.
            4.7 So far as the product Harpic & Lizol is concerned, it is the
F    case on behalf of the appellant that the State of Kerala issued a notification
     dated 24.10.2006 retrospectively effective from 07.01.2006 omitting HSN
     Code 3808 from Entry 44(5) of III Schedule of KVAT Act. It is submitted
     that Harpic & Lizol would still continue to fall in Entry 44(5) even after
     deletion of HSN Code 3808, as they are disinfectants under the Drugs
G    & Cosmetics Act/Rules and manufactured under the licence granted as
     a disinfectant, under the said act. In support of the above, he has relied
     upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd. (supra)
     and Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 1995 Supp. (2) SCC
     646 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the caseof
     Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Tax
H    Revision Case No.10 of 2007.
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                              71
     COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

     4.8 Now so far as the product Dettol is concerned, it is the case          A
on behalf of the appellant that the Dettol is an antiseptic liquid,
manufactured under a Drug License and it prevents infection. It is
submitted that it is considered as an essential drug and hence its price
was controlled under DPCO and the MRP of Dettol continues to be
monitored under DPCO, 2013.
                                                                                B
         4.9 It is submitted that Dettol falls under HSN 3004 90 specifically
incorporated in Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of Schedule III, therefore Dettol is
classifiable as a drug/medicine under Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of Schedule
III. It is submitted that in Note 23 of the Rules of interpretation under
Entry 36 of Schedule III, the only exclusion is dietary food, diabetic
food, food supplements, medicated soaps, blood albumin etc. are not             C
excluded.
       4.10 It is further submitted that most importantly HSN Code was
not deleted from Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of Schedule III, even though by virtue
of notification K.G. Ext.NO.1670 dated 24.10.2006 (retrospectively
effective from 01.07.2006), HSN Code was deleted in Entry 44(5) of              D
Schedule III under which the appellant has classified Mortein range,
Mortein spray, Harpic & Lizol. It is submitted that therefore the Dettol
continue to fall under Entry 36(8)(h)(vi).
        4.11 It is further submitted that the active ingredients of Dettol
are Chloroxylenol IP, Terpineol BP, Alcohol Absolute IP (denatured) and         E
it is an antiseptic having germicidal properties; it kills germs, bacteria
and it prevents infection therefore it is applied on wounds, cuts, grazes,
bites and stings and is used in hospitals for surgical use, medical use and
midwifery, due to therapeutic & prophylactic properties.
        4.12 It is submitted that this Court in the case of ICPA Health         F
Products (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara (2004) 4 SCC 481 has held
that the said products are used for disinfecting the skin prior to surgery.
It is submitted that as per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition the
term “prophylactic” would mean, “intending to prevent diseases, a
preventive medicine or course of action”. It is submitted that as the           G
aforesaid products are used as a cleanser for cleaning of wounds and
abrasions and minor cuts and to disinfect the skin prior to surgery, they
have therapeutic and prophylactic properties. It is submitted that applying
the legal principles enunciated by this Court qua Dettol, the Dettol is a
drug/medicine.
                                                                                H
72             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           4.13 It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Sujanil
     Chemo Industries vs. CCE & Customs, Pune (2005) 4 SCC 189
     (para 6) in the context of Licel used for killing lice in human hair has
     held that any medicine which kills disease or is a palliative or curative is
     therapeutic. It is submitted that Licel cures the infection of lice in human
     hair and is thus therapeutic. It is submitted that applying the same the
B
     Dettol is also a medicament.
            4.14 It is submitted that in the case of Ponds India Ltd. (supra)
     in respect of the classification under the Trade Tax/VAT Laws this Court
     has taken into consideration the definition of ‘Drug’ as defined under the
     Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the fact that the product is sold under
C    a drug licence since drug or medicine is not defined under the Trade
     Tax/VAT Laws. It is submitted that the Dettol is manufactured under a
     drug licence issued under the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules and its price
     has been regulated by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
     under Drug Price Control Orders issued from time to time including
D    DPCO, 2013.
            4.15 It is submitted that Rule 123 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules
     provides for certain exceptions to the drugs falling under Schedule K to
     the extent provided therein. Entry 39 deals with Liquid Antiseptics for
     household use. The appellant submits that Dettol being an antiseptic
E    falls under Entry 39 of Schedule K provided under Rule 123 of the Drugs
     & Cosmetics Rules. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Ponds
     India Ltd. (supra) has considered the aforesaid aspect and had held
     that Vaseline White Petroleum Jelly to be a drug as it falls under Entry
     28 of Schedule K provided under Rule 123 of the Drugs & Cosmetics
     Act/Rules.
F
            4.16 It is further submitted that the impugned judgment fails to
     consider the well settled principles of classification which are
     fundamental to any matter relating to classification under a taxing statute
     namely viz. (a) plain meaning to be given to the taxing provision; (b)
     burden to prove classification in a particular entry is always on the
G    Revenue; (c) any ambiguity has to be resolved in favour of the assessee
     and in case of a reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to
     the assessee must be adopted; (d) specific entry would override a
     residuary entry; and (e) resort to residuary entry is to be taken as a
     last measure, only when by liberal construction the specific entry cannot
H    cover the goods in question.
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                               73
     COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4.17 It is further submitted that the Gawahati High Court as well         A
as the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser India
Ltd. vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer & Ors., STR-11/
2012 have held Dettol to be a drug under the respective entries of Assam
VAT Act and Rajasthan VAT Act and have rejected the submission of
the Revenue in those States that the Dettol falls under the residuary            B
entry. It is submitted that the SLPs against the decision of the Rajasthan
High Court by the Revenue have been dismissed by this Court.
        5. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,
it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
        6. While opposing the present appeal Shri Sasi, learned counsel          C
appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently submitted that the
product Mortein range and Mortein Spray would not be classifiable under
Entry No. 44(5) as insecticides as contended on behalf of the appellant.
It is submitted that “Mortein Mosquito coil, mat and liquid vaporizer”
cannot be classifiable as an insecticide and the same is unsustainable in
                                                                                 D
view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sonic Electrochem
vs. STO, (1998) 6 SCC 397 wherein this Court has held that the
product ‘Jet Mat’ which is a trade name containing ‘d-Allethrin 4%’ and
is commercially known as “Mosquito Repellent Mat” is a mosquito
repellent notwithstanding the fact that it not only repels the mosquitoes
but also is capable of killing the mosquitoes and it is difficult to hold that   E
it is an insecticide. It is submitted that the product “Mortein Mosquito
Coil, mat and liquid vaporizer” would definitely come under Entry 66
“Mosquito Repellent”.
       6.1 It is submitted that the appellant – assessee is relying Entry
44(5) in support of their case products Mortein range and Mortein Spray          F
shall fall as insecticides under Entry 44(5). It is submitted that Entry 44
related to products which are used in agricultural operations. It is
submitted that all the products in that Entry are used in the agricultural
field in relation to growing of agricultural products and controlling of
pets, insecticides etc. which attacked the plants.                               G
        6.2 It is submitted that the product such as Harpic Toilet Cleaner
and Lizol Floor Cleaner are not used in relation to controlling pets and
insecticides in the agricultural field. It is submitted that the name of
these products contains the words “Toilet Cleaner and Floor Cleaner”.
It is submitted that the use of “Harpic Toilet Cleaner” and “Lizol Floor         H
74             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A    Cleaner” is exclusively for cleaning of toilet and floor respectively and
     therefore cannot be treated as insecticide.
            6.3 It is submitted that so far as the reliance placed upon the
     decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
     (supra) is absolutely misplaced and shall not be applicable in the facts
B    of the instant case. It is submitted that in the case of Bombay Chemical
     Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court was dealing with Entry “Insecticides,
     Pesticides, Weedicides and Fungicides etc.” under the Central Exercise
     Salt Act, 1944. It is submitted that the said Entry is different from Entry
     44 of the KVAT Act which are products exclusively dealing with the
     products in agricultural operations.
C
             6.4 Now so far as the product Dettol antiseptic liquid is concerned,
     it is submitted that the same cannot be classified as an item used for
     Medicament for therapeutic or prophylactic uses. It is submitted that a
     medicament is an item used for therapeutic or prophylactic treatment
     for prevention and cure of diseases. It is submitted that the High Court
D    has specifically found that the appellant has no case that Dettol is able to
     prevent or cure any disease and therefore has rightly held the Dettol is
     not a medicament. It is submitted that therefore the Dettol would fall
     under residuary Entry.
           7. Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present
E    appeal.
           8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     respective parties at length.
            9. So far as the product Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers and
F    Mortein Insect Killers are concerned, it is the case on behalf of the
     appellant that the said products would fall in Entry 44(5) of III Schedule
     of KVAT Act and would fall under HSN Code 3808. Therefore, it is the
     case on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid products shall be
     classifiable as insecticides under Entry 44(5) and therefore chargeable
     to tax at 4%. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that as the aforesaid
G    products are manufactured under the licence granted under the
     Insecticides Act and therefore the said products can be said to be
     insecticides classifiable under Entry 44(5). The aforesaid has no
     substance. It is required to be noted that HSN Code 3808 has been
     deleted from Entry 44(5) w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and from 21.01.2006 the
     aforesaid products would fall under Sl. No.66 namely ‘Mosquito
H
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                           75
     COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

repellant’, which is the specific entry and subject to VAT at 12.5%. The     A
insecticides under Entry 44(5) therefore can be said to be a general
entry. Once there is a specific entry the ‘Mosquito Repellant’, thereafter
one is not required to go to the definition under another Act namely
Insecticides Act. Sl.No.66 of Notification SRO 82/06 dated 21.01.2006
issued under Section 6(1)(d) of the Kerala VAT Act which covers              B
“Mosquito Repellants”.
       9.1 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that Entry 44(5)
which includes insecticides relates to products which are used in
agricultural operations. All the products in the Entry are used in the
agricultural field in relation to growing of agricultural products and       C
controlling of pets, insecticides etc. which are attacking the plants.
Therefore, in view of the specific Entry 66 of Notification SRO 82/06
dated 21.01.2006 the aforesaid products namely Mosquito Repellants,
electric or electronic mosquito repellants, gadgets and insect repellants,
devices and parts and accessories thereof are rightly classified as
Mosquito repellants. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision     D
of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is
concerned, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the
case on hand while dealing with the specific entries under KVAT Act. It
was a case under the Central Excise Act and the Entry corresponding to
the Excise Act. In the present case under the KVAT Act there is a            E
specific Entry Mosquito repellant so far as the product electric or
electronic mosquito repellents, gadgets and insect repellents, devices
and parts and accessories thereof are concerned and therefore the said
specific entry shall be applicable in any case, the same cannot be said to
be insecticides. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the High Court that Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers and Mortein          F
Insect Killers products shall not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) as
insecticides.
       9.2 Now so far as the products Harpic and Lizol is concerned, it
is the case on behalf of the appellant that the same is classifiable under
Entry 44(5) of III Schedule of KVAT Act - HSN Code 3808 and the said         G
products are also classifiable as insecticides.
      9.3 However, it is required to be noted that after introduction of
SRO 82/06 w.e.f. 22.01.2006 the Harpic and Lizol would fall under Sl.
No. 27(4) of SRO 82/06. Sl. No.27(4) thus is a specific entry.
                                                                             H
76            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            9.4 Even the High Court has also considered the use of the
     aforesaid two products. The aforesaid two products are used for cleaning
     the floor and toilet. As noted by the High Court and even from the product
     description and the nature of use statedin the products, the said two
     items are essentially used as stain removers and deodorants. Merely
B    because they kill germs as well, the same cannot be said to be insecticides
     classifiable under Entry 44(5). What is required to be considered is the
     dominant use which is cleaning and removal of stains of floor and the
     toilet. Thereafter, the same shall not fall under Entry 44(5) – HSN Code
     No.3808 as insecticides or disinfectant. Entry 27(4) of SRO No. 82 of
     2006 is with respect to stain busters, stain removers, abir, blue and all
C    kinds of cleaning powder and liquids including floor and toilet cleaning.
     In that view of the matter Entry 27(4) being a specific entry the same
     shall be applicable and the aforesaid two products namely Harpic and
     Lizol shall not be classifiable under general Entry 44(5) and in any case
     the same cannot be classifiable under Entry 44(5) as insecticides. We
D    are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court that
     the product Harpic and Lizol shall not be classifiable under Entry 44(5)
     and shall be classifiable under Entry 27(4) of SRO 82/2006 chargeable
     to tax at 12.5%.
             9.5 However, so far as the product Dettol is concerned, it is the
E    case on behalf of the appellant that Dettol is an Antiseptic Liquid and
     therefore is classifiable as a drug/medicine under Entry 36(8)(h)(vi).
     The active ingredients of Dettol are Chloroxylenol IP, Terpineol BP,
     Alcohol Absolute IP (denatured) and it is an antiseptic having germicidal
     properties and it kills germs, bacteria and it prevents infection therefore
     it is applied on wounds, cuts, grazes, bites and stings. It is also used in
F
     hospitals for surgical use and medical use.
           9.6 Thus the Dettol is used as an antiseptic liquid and is used in
     hospitals for surgical use, medical use and midwifery, due to therapeutic
     & prophylactic properties. Therefore, the same can be said to be an
     item of medicament to be treated as a drug and medicine. Here also the
G
     dominant use is a relevant consideration.
            9.7 In the case of Ponds India Ltd. (supra) this Court has held
     that while deciding the issue whether any particular item would be covered
     under relevant entry or classification, different tests viz. the dictionary
     meaning, technical meaning, user’s point of view, popular meaning etc.
H
M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER                            77
     COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

are to be applied. In paragraphs 35 & 38 it is observed and held as           A
under:
      “35…..while interpreting an entry in a taxing statute, the court’s
      role would be to consider the effect thereof upon considering the
      same from different angles. Different tests are laid down for
      interpretation of an entry in a taxing statute, namely, dictionary      B
      meaning, technical meaning, user’s point of view, popular meaning,
      etc.”
                           XXX       XXX       XXX
      “38. Whether a product would be a drug or a cosmetic sometimes
                                                                              C
      poses a difficult question and, thus, answer thereto may not be
      easy. For the said purpose, the court may not only be required to
      consider the contents thereof, but also the history of the entry, the
      purpose for which the product is used, the manner in which it has
      been dealt with under the relevant statute as also the interpretation
      thereof by the implementing authorities.”                               D
       9.8 Thus, as per the settled position of law while considering a
particular entry the principles of classification which are fundamental to
any matter relating to classification under the taxing statute are:
      (a) plain meaning to be given to the taxing provision;
                                                                              E
      (b) burden to prove classification in a particular entry is always
      on the Revenue;
      (c) any ambiguity has to be resolved in favour of the assessee
      and in case of a reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial
      to the assessee must be adopted;                                        F
      (d) specific entry would override a residuary entry; and
      (e) resort to residuary entry is to be taken as a last measure, only
      when by liberal construction the specific entry cannot cover the
      goods in question.
                                                                              G
      9.9 At this stage it is required to be noted that the Guwahati High
Court and the Rajasthan High Court have held the Dettol to be a drug
under the respective entries of Assam VAT Act and Rajasthan VAT Act
and have rejected the submission of the Revenue that the Dettol falls
under the residuary entry. It is to be noted against the decision of the
                                                                              H
78             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A    Rajasthan High Court, the Revenue had preferred the SLPs before this
     Court which are dismissed by this Court.
            9.10 In view of the above and considering the dominant use of
     Dettol and the active ingredients of Dettol referred to hereinabove and
     that the Dettol is used as an antiseptic and is used in hospitals for surgical
B    use, medical use and midwifery due to therapeutic & prophylactic
     properties the same would fall under Entry 36(8) (h) (vi) as claimed by
     the appellant and would not fall under the residuary entry as claimed by
     the Revenue. To that extent the impugned judgment and order passed
     by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
C           10. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, present
     appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by
     the High Court in so far as the products Mosquito Mats, Coils and
     Vaporizers and Mortein Insect Killers; Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol
     Floor Cleaners is hereby confirmed. So far as the impugned judgment
     and order passed by the High Court with respect to Dettol Antiseptic
D    Liquid is concerned, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
     High Court is set aside and it is held that the product Dettol would fall
     under Entry 36(8) (h)(vi) of Schedule III of the KVAT Act and shall be
     liable to be taxed at 4%.
           Present appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid
E    extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall
     be no order as to costs.

     Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal partly allowed.
     (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)
F




G




H