VAT / Product Classification · F2J-C-2842
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Chairman, Commercial Tax Tribunal & Anr.
VALIDATED · ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTSource transparency: The local PDF is an actual court document retained from the complete public source. The official court portal is recorded separately. Verify the official record and subsequent history before reliance.
Holding (ratio)
SBR latex remains synthetic rubber despite its physical form or end use. The specific unqualified 'rubber' entry prevailed over the residuary entry and Revenue bore the burden of establishing the contrary classification.
Scope limits
The holding is confined to the issues actually decided in the retained judgment; no view is attributed to the court on questions expressly left open or remanded.
Sources and completeness
- PDF status
- Complete searchable public court copy, retained unchanged
- PDF origin
- Downloaded unchanged from the complete public court-copy source
- PDF pages
- 10
- Extracted words
- 2,059
- PDF SHA-256
685f8ab96bc9e03d970b8cb73018133762764ed07e8cd08c68fd68605f3a5c10
Complete searchable judgment text
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
RESERVED JUDGMENT
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 10 OF 2025
1: Pidilite Industries Limited
…Revisionist
Versus
1: The Chairman, Commercial Tax Tribunal
2: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax
…Respondents
with
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 11 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 12 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 13 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 14 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 15 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 16 OF 2025
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 17 OF 2025
Counsel for the revisionist. : Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Rohit Arora, Mr. Mohit
Rawal and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT RESERVED : 06TH JULY, 2026
JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta)
1. Heard Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Rohit Arora, Mr. Mohit Rawal and Mr. Yuvraj
Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Puja
Banga, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand.
2. Since all these revisions arise out of a common
judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, and involve an
1
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
identical question of law, they are being decided by this
common judgment.
3. The principal question, which arises for
consideration is whether Dr. Fixit Pidicrete URP (SBR Latex)
and Dr. Fixit Super Latex (SBR Latex) are covered by Entry
No. 96 of Schedule II-B of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax
Act, or are liable to be treated as unclassified goods and
taxed accordingly.
4. The Tribunal, by the impugned common judgment
dated 05.06.2025, has held that the products in question,
being synthetic latex, do not fall within Entry No. 96 of the
Act. According to the Tribunal, the expression “latex”
occurring in the said Entry is confined to natural latex
obtained from a rubber plant. Consequently, the Tribunal
has set aside the orders passed by the First Appellate
Authority, and restored those of the Assessing Authority,
treating the goods as unclassified and taxable at the rate of
13.5%. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the
present revisions.
RELEVANT ENTRY :
5. Entry No. 96 of Schedule II-B of the Act, in its
English version, reads :-
2
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
“Rubber, raw rubber, latex, dry ribbed.”
6. The corresponding Hindi version reads :-
“रबड़, कच्चा रबड़, रबड़ के पौधे का दूध (लैटेक्स ) तथा सुखी
पसलीदार”
7. The rate of tax prescribed under the Entry was
5%.
NATURE OF THE GOODS :
8. There is no dispute regarding the basic nature of
the products. The Tribunal itself has recorded that Dr. Fixit
Pidicrete URP (SBR Latex) and Dr. Fixit Super Latex (SBR
Latex) are SBR Latex – a synthetic polymer derived from
styrene and butadiene. It has further noticed that the
products are synthetic rubber/ latex and are used, inter alia,
as addition in concrete, mortar and grout and as
waterproofing and bonding agents. Thus, the controversy
essentially concerns the interpretation of Entry No. 96 of the
Act.
CONSIDERATION :
9. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has
approached the controversy from an unduly narrow
perspective. The entire discussion in the impugned
judgment proceeds substantially on the question, whether
the expression “latex”, occurring in Entry No. 96 of the Act,
3
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
includes synthetic latex. In doing so, however, the Tribunal
has failed to consider an anterior and more fundamental
aspect arising from the language of the entry itself.
Significantly, the expression “rubber” has not been qualified
by the word “natural”, nor does the entry provide that
rubber must necessarily be obtained from a rubber plant.
The products in question are admittedly “SBR Latex”. “SBR”
stands for Styrene Butadiene Rubber, and is a species of
synthetic rubber. Therefore, before examining, whether
synthetic rubber falls within the definition of latex, it was
necessary for the Tribunal to have considered, whether the
products, being admittedly synthetic rubber in latex form,
were independently covered by the expression “rubber”
occurring in the very same entry. This material aspect has
not been considered by the Tribunal at all.
10. The mere fact that rubber is synthetically
manufactured cannot, in the absence of restrictive words in
the entry, take it outside the generic expression “rubber”.
Had the legislature intended to confine Entry No. 96 only to
natural rubber, it could have said so expressly. To construe
the unqualified word “rubber”, as meaning only “natural
rubber”, would amount to introducing a limitation, which the
legislature itself had not incorporated.
4
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
11. The manner, in which other entries in the very
same Schedule have been worded reinforces this conclusion.
Wherever the legislature intended to exclude a particular
class of goods, it has expressly employed words of
exclusion. For instance, Entry No. 103 1 uses the expression
“other than”, Entry No. 114 2 uses the word “excluding”,
while Entry No. 117 3 employs the expression “except”.
Entry No. 96, on the other hand, simply uses the words
“rubber, raw rubber, latex, dry ribbed”, without excluding
synthetic rubber or synthetic latex.
12. This distinction cannot be regarded as
insignificant. When the legislature has expressly provided
for exclusion in other entries of the same Schedule, the
absence of any such exclusion in Entry No. 96 assumes
significance. Had the legislative intent been to confine
expression “rubber” only to natural rubber, or to exclude
synthetic rubber therefrom, nothing prevented it from saying
so expressly. The Court cannot read into the entry an
exclusion, which the legislature, despite knowing how to
provide one, has chosen not to incorporate.
1
Entry No. 103 : Solvent oils other than organic solvent oil
2
Entry No. 114 : Toys excluding electronic toys
3
Entry No. 117 : Umbrella except garden umbrella
5
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
13. The aforesaid conclusion also finds support from
the decision of the Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd. v.
Union of India and others, (1976) 2 SCC 241. While
dealing with the classification of Vinyl Pyridine Latex, the
Supreme Court considered the technical material relating to
natural and synthetic rubber and noticed synthetic rubber as
synthetic rubber in latex form. The decision also notices
styrene butadiene rubber in the context of synthetic rubber.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that, when an article
has, by all standards, a reasonable claim to be classified
under a specified enumerated entry, it ought not to be
relegated to a residuary clause. The relevant exposition of
law is as follows :-
“35. It is good fiscal policy not to put people in
doubt and quandary about their liability to duty. When a
particular product like V.P. Latex known to trade and
commerce in this country and abroad is imported, it would
have been better if the article is, eo nomine put under a
proper classification to avoid controversy over the
residuary clause. As a matter of fact in the Red Book
(Import Trade Control Policy of the Ministry of Commerce)
under Item 150, in Section II, which relates to "rubber,
raw and gutta percha, raw", synthetic latex including vinyl
pyridine latex and copolymer of styrene butadiene latex
are specifically included under the sub-head "Synthetic
Rubber". We do not see any reason why the same policy
could not have been followed in the ICT book being
complementary to each other. When an article has, by all
standards, a reasonable claim to be classified under an
enumerated item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against
the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage
and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause. The
question of competition between two rival classifications
will, however, stand on a different footing.”
6
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
(emphasis supplied)
14. The aforesaid principle applies with considerable
force to the present case. Once the goods are admittedly
Styrene Butadiene Rubber, the fact that such rubber is in
latex form does not deprive it of its essential character as
rubber. Its physical form cannot, by itself, be employed to
deny it a specification, to which it otherwise answers by its
nature and composition. We are, therefore, of the
considered view that the goods in question have a direct
claim to classification under Entry No. 96 by virtue of the
expression “rubber” itself.
15. In view of this conclusion, we do not consider it
necessary to enter into the question, whether there is any
conflict or ambiguity between the Hindi and English version
of Entry No. 96, although learned counsel for the parties
have filed large number of precedents in support of, and
against the said legal proposition. The entry has to be read
as a whole, and not by isolating the expression “latex”
occurring therein. Once the products in question are found
to be covered by independent and unclassified expression
“rubber”, the controversy regarding the precise amplitude of
the expression “latex”, or any alleged conflict between its
English and Hindi version does not arise for determination.
7
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
16. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is
well settled that resort to a residuary entry is warranted
when the goods cannot be brought within a specified
enumerated entry. When a commodity reasonably answers
the description contained in a specific entry, it ought not
ordinarily be relegated to the residuary category. Equally
well settled is the principle that the burden of establishing
the classification sought to be applied lies upon the
Revenue. Where the Revenue seeks to exclude a
commodity from a specific entry, and bring it within a
residuary Entry, attracting a higher rate of tax, it must first
establish that the commodity cannot reasonably be brought
within the specific entry. Resort to the residuary entry
cannot be justified merely by placing a restrictive
construction upon the specific entry.
17. In Kesharwani Enterprises v. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 397 (Chhattisgarh), it
was held that the Department must first establish
conclusively that the product cannot be brought under any
of the specific tariff items before it can be brought under the
residuary entry. It was further held that when two views,
regarding classification are possible, the view favourable to
the assessee is to be adopted.
8
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
18. In the present case, the Revenue has failed to
discharge this burden. The goods are admittedly SBR Latex
i.e. Styrene Butadiene Rubber Latex, whereas Entry No. 96
expressly includes rubber. Neither has the Revenue pointed
out any provision expressly excluding synthetic rubber from
Entry No. 96, nor has it established that SBR ceases to be
rubber merely because it is synthetic, or is in latex form.
19. The Tribunal has also referred to the fact that the
products are used as waterproofing and bonding agent and
as additives in concrete, mortar and grout. The end use of a
commodity cannot, by itself, determine its classification,
when the commodity otherwise answers the description
contained in its specific entry. The relevant inquiry is into
the identity, nature and character of the goods, and not the
end use, to which a product is put to. The fact that SBR
Latex is used as waterproofing or bonding agent does not
alter its character as synthetic rubber. Its ultimate use,
therefore, furnishes no specific basis for excluding it from
Entry No. 96 and relegating it to the residuary clause.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment
of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set
aside. The order of the First Appellate Authority is,
9
UKHC010144832025
2026:UHC:8386-DB
accordingly, restored. The revisions are allowed. The SBR
Latex is held to be covered by Entry No. 96 of Schedule II-B,
and would be taxable accordingly.
21. All pending applications also stand disposed of
accordingly.
______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 18th September, 2026
Rahul
Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI
RAHUL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e6
1bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
PRAJAPATI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192F
CAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898,
cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI
Date: 2026.09.18 10:33:37 +05'30'
10
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the controlling court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history.