The Kerala HC ruled that as the construction of "Boat jetty" involved, inter alia, erection of concrete pillars to support the platform, protective construction of the building with stones, it answered the description of a "Building" as used in Section 7(7) of the Kerala GST Act and would be eligible for payment of tax at the compounded rate.

State of Kerala vs. Radheysyam Khandelwal (2010) 28 VST 349 (Ker.)

It was held that financial services companies and non-banking financial companies were dealers falling within the inclusive part of the definition of "Dealer". The inclusive part widens the scope of the definition so as to bring within its ambit such things as are not ordinarily covered by the opening part. The inclusive part need not always be read in conjunction with the main part and it could be read separately to find out the extent of the extended coverage introduced or intended by it. Accordingly, goods that such companies procure or come to possess upon enforcement of hypothecation / mortgage when sold would be liable to sales tax.

Peerless General Finance & Investment vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 31 VST 155 (WBTT). Also reaffirmed in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Jt. Commissioner (2010) 31 VST 178 (WBTT) by a separate order.

The Court held that diagnostic films and X-ray films were not classifiable as "medical equipment, devices or implants"

Mittal Distributors vs. State of Punjab 29 VST 455 (P & H)

The dealer had filed Form F and proof that the agent had paid local tax in the state to which the goods were dispatched. The goods were neither manufactured to specification nor meant for a particular customer. The fact that same amount mentioned in the sale invoice had been paid to the dealer by agents and that there was no specific clause for return of unsold goods would not be grounds to hold that the dispatches were interstate sales.

State of Tamil Nadu vs. Kumaran Mills Ltd. (2010) 28 VST 262 (Mad.)

In the absence of period of limitation for passing of assessment orders, on a conjoint reading of Section 11 and proviso to Section 14 of the Punjab GST Act, it would be incumbent on the assessing authority to pass the assessment order within a period of 3 years which was considered reasonable and in any event, within a period of 5 years as that was the period for which dealers were obliged to preserve/produce their books of account.

Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (2010) 31 VST 85 (P & H)

The Guwahati HC held that limitation would not be applicable to an order made in pursuance of directions given by appellate / revision authority or by a Court in writ proceedings- only the original order would be governed by the period of limitation.

Jyoti Forge & Fabrication & Anr. vs. State of Assam & Ors (2010) 31 VST 76 (Gauhati)

The petitioner set up an eligible unit with an installed capacity of 198000 TPA and opted for Deferral scheme which was granted for 14 years from 1998 to 2012. In 2000, the petitioner undertook expansion of production capacity and opted for Exemption scheme which was granted for 7 years from 2000 to 2007 subject to the condition that the petitioner achieved base production of 198000 TPA. The petitioner availed deferment on base production during 2000 to 2007 and tax exemption on production in excess of the base production. During 2007-08 to 2009, the petitioner was denied deferral benefit on the ground that the petitioner had not segregated and had expressed its inability to segregate production between the original unit and the expanded unit. The Court held that under the circumstances, the total denial of deferment benefit was untenable and the Assessing authority ought to have offered the tax deferment on pro rata basis if as the petitioner claimed, it was difficult to segregate production from the original unit and the expanded unit. Hence, the assessment was directed to be done de novo after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard on the issue of segregation of production.

My Home Industries Ltd. vs. AC (LTU) (2010) 31 VST 128 (A.P.)

The SC has ruled that Notice for reopening assessment would not be vitiated for failure to state the reasons that led to the issuance of the Notice as Section 11E of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 no where stipulates furnishing of reasons for issuance of Notice. The purpose of the SCN was to give the dealer an opportunity of being heard on the aspect of furnishing of incorrect statement of turnover or particulars of sales in the returns and non disclosure of the reasons would not impede with the right of the dealer to give an effective reply.

Supreme Paper Mills Ltd. vs. AC, Commercial Taxes (2010) 31 VST 1 (SC)

Based on the finding of the first appellate authority that the sale price was agreed to at Rs. 60 per cum and the transport charges of Rs. 97.88 per cum was to be borne by the purchaser but initially paid by the seller on behalf of the purchaser, the Court held that transport charges were not part of sale price.

Kiran Stone Crusher vs. State of Orissa (2010) 31 VST 45 (Orissa)

The first schedule to Kerala GST Act contained entries "Curry powder" (Entry 32) and "Turmeric" (Entry 159) and an Explanation was inserted w.e.f. April 1, 2000 to cover "turmeric powder" under the entry relating to Turmeric. The Kerala HC held that Pickles, although not known as "curry", serve as "curry". Hence, Pickle mix powder , which was made of various spices such as chilly, pepper, turmeric powder, etc. serves as curry powder and would be classifiable under Entry 32. Further, the Explanation inserted to Entry 159 was merely clarificatory and even prior to its insertion. Turmeric in all its forms including powder form would be covered as "Turmeric". Alternatively, turmeric powder could be covered under "Curry powder" which attracted the same rate of tax but certainly would not be relegated to the residuary entry.

Classic Spices P. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2010) 28 VST 489 (Ker)

The above items being Masala, instant mixes or mixtures containing more than one spice or spice with any other material were held to be commodities different from "Spices" covered under Entry 89 or 61 of the Karnataka VAT Act and would fall in the residuary entry.

Sakthi Masala P. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 29 VST 461 (Karn)

It was held that Hair dye was a cosmetic and would be covered by the entry 127 of the Kerala GST Act, which was a residuary entry for cosmetics not covered under any other entry in the Schedule. The Court clarified that Godrej Soaps Ltd. vs. State of A.P. (1983) 53 STC 376 (A.P) was only concerned with the limited question whether "Hair dye" was a Hair lotion and hence could not be relied upon to contend that hair dye was not a cosmetic.

State of Kerala vs. Anitha Balan (2010) 28 VST 530 (Ker.)

The Division Bench overruled the decision of the Single Judge reported in (2009) 25 VST 632 (Mad.) and held that potato chips sold under brand names like "Lays" and "Uncle Chips" would be classifiable as "Processed vegetables" under Sch. Entry B-107 to the Tamil Nadu VAT Act 2006 and not under the residuary entry. The term "processing" would take within its ambit any such process including cutting and frying of potatoes. Unless the goods in question can by no conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, recourse cannot be had to the residuary item.

Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. CCT (2010) 29 VST 214 (Mad.)