Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Monday, October 5, 2026 Jaipur Edition
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court

Tax Follows the Form at Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Rules Drink-Mix Powder Is Not a Beverage

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that ‘GRD Powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’, sold as powder and biscuit, are not ‘non-alcoholic drinks and beverages’ under Entry 20(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and fall in the residuary entry. The taxable event is the sale, so classification turns on the form of the goods when sold, not the consumer's later use (paras 16-19, 29). Read ejusdem generis, ‘beverages’ covers liquids (paras 20, 23). The State's appeals were dismissed (para 31).

Tax Follows the Form at Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Rules Drink-Mix Powder Is Not a Beverage

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd & Anr.
2026 INSC 1078
Civil Appeal Nos. 9788-9789 of 2013
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
5 October 2026
Bench
Justices Manmohan and Arun Palli
Relevant Acts & Sections
Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 — Schedule II, Part IV Entry 20(ii) and Part VII Entry 1; M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 — Schedule II Entry 14, Schedule III
Final Outcome

Appeals dismissed. The High Court's classification of ‘GRD Powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’ under the residuary entry, taxable at 8% for Assessment Year 1997-98, stands (paras 1, 29, 31).

Key holdings

  1. Taxing statutes are strictly construed; nothing may be read in or implied (para 15).
  2. The taxable event is the sale; classification follows the form of the goods when sold, not their end use (paras 16-19).
  3. ‘Beverages’ in Entry 20(ii), read ejusdem generis with syrups, cordials and essences, covers liquids, not powders or biscuits (paras 20, 23, 29).
  4. Common parlance, functional or basic-nature tests cannot import end use where the entry is clear (para 22).
  5. Goods outside a specific entry fall in the residuary entry and cannot be forced into a higher-rated one (para 24).

Brief Facts

For Assessment Year 1997-98 the Revenue sought to tax the respondent's ‘GRD Powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’ at 10% as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages under Entry 20(ii), Part IV, Schedule II of the 1994 Act, because the packaging told consumers to mix them with milk or water (paras 2-3). The respondent said goods sold over the counter as powder and biscuit fell in the residuary entry at 8% (para 2). The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the residuary classification, and the State appealed (para 1).

Court's Findings

The Court began from the rule that taxing statutes are strictly construed and nothing may be read in or implied (para 15). The taxable event is the act of supply, so tax must follow the form of the goods at the time of sale and not their end use (paras 16-17). A protein powder may be drunk or used in barfi; a consumer's later mixing with milk or water cannot change the taxable event (paras 18-19). Entry 20(ii) lists syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, all liquids, and says nothing of end use (paras 20-21). Common parlance, functional or basic-nature tests cannot import end use where the entry is clear (para 22). Read ejusdem generis, ‘beverages’ cannot cover goods of a different physical form, and goods outside a specific entry fall in the residuary entry rather than being forced into a higher-rated one (paras 23-24). Pioma Industries, S. Samuel and Hamdard (2026) were distinguished: Pioma's entry expressly included powders, and the Hamdard sharbat was liquid (paras 25-28).

Legal Principle

In a sales-tax classification dispute, goods are classified by their form at the taxable event, the sale, not by how the buyer may later use them. A general word like ‘beverages’ takes colour from the liquid items listed with it, and goods outside a specific entry fall in the residuary entry (paras 19, 23-24, 29).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15

    The intention of the legislature in a taxing statute is gathered from its plain language; no intention beyond it may be assumed, and if the subject, the person liable or the rate is ambiguous, there is no tax in law.

  2. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Carrier Aircon Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 596
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16

    The end use to which a product is put cannot by itself determine its classification.

  3. Pioma Industries v. State of Kerala (2008) 12 SCC 695
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 9, 25, 26

    The ‘Rasna’ case was remanded without deciding whether it was a beverage, and the entry there expressly included powders and concentrates used to prepare non-alcoholic drinks.

View all precedents (9)
  1. S. Samuel M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India (2004) 1 SCC 256
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 11, 25, 27

    Held tea is a beverage and not a foodstuff, with no competing entries; it did not decide whether tea leaves in powder form are themselves a beverage.

  2. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 306
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 28

    The sharbat there existed in liquid form; the word ‘including’ does not make an entry all-encompassing.

  3. Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd v. Collector of Excise (1986) 3 SCC 480
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7, 8

    Relied on by the appellants for the common use and functional character test.

  4. Indian Aluminum Cables Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 284
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7

    Relied on by the appellants for the basic nature test, independent of the manufacturing process.

  5. Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 241
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13

    Relied on by the respondents: end use of an article is irrelevant for classification.

  6. Hamdard Wakf Laboratories v. Collector of Central Excise (1999) 6 SCC 617
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 14

    Relied on by the respondents: beverages are liquids for drinking, other than water, consumed neat or after dilution.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 2 min read
Decided: October 5, 2026 Justices Manmohan and Arun Palli
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt