{"id":33960,"date":"2026-10-12T07:33:05","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T07:33:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=33960"},"modified":"2026-10-12T07:37:48","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T07:37:48","slug":"tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 id=\"h-tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Tax_Classification_Depends_on_Product_Form_at_Sale_Not_End_Use\"><\/span>Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-supreme-court-clarifies-the-law-in-addl-commissioner-commercial-tax-v-cadila-health-care-ltd\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Clarifies_the_Law_in_Addl_Commissioner_Commercial_Tax_v_Cadila_Health_Care_Ltd\"><\/span>Supreme Court Clarifies the Law in Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. Cadila Health Care Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-i-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"I_Introduction\"><\/span>I. Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed a principle of fiscal interpretation that taxpayers and tax officers meet every day: goods are classified for tax in the form in which they are supplied, and not by what the consumer may later do with them.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_88 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Tax_Classification_Depends_on_Product_Form_at_Sale_Not_End_Use\" >Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Supreme_Court_Clarifies_the_Law_in_Addl_Commissioner_Commercial_Tax_v_Cadila_Health_Care_Ltd\" >Supreme Court Clarifies the Law in Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. Cadila Health Care Ltd.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#I_Introduction\" >I. Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#II_The_Case_at_a_Glance\" >II. The Case at a Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#III_Facts_and_Statutory_Background\" >III. Facts and Statutory Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#IV_Issues_Before_the_Court\" >IV. Issues Before the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#V_The_Decision_and_Its_Reasoning\" >V. The Decision and Its Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#A_Strict_Construction_of_Taxing_Statutes_Para_15\" >A. Strict Construction of Taxing Statutes (Para 15)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#B_The_Taxable_Event_Is_Supply_the_Form_at_Supply_Decides_Paras_16%E2%80%9319\" >B. The Taxable Event Is Supply; the Form at Supply Decides (Paras 16\u201319)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#C_Entry_20ii_Is_an_Entry_for_Liquids_Paras_20%E2%80%9321_23\" >C. Entry 20(ii) Is an Entry for Liquids (Paras 20\u201321, 23)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#D_Common_Parlance_Functional_and_Basic-Nature_Tests_Para_22\" >D. Common Parlance, Functional and Basic-Nature Tests (Para 22)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#E_Residuary_Entry_Para_24_and_Conclusion_Para_29\" >E. Residuary Entry (Para 24) and Conclusion (Para 29)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#VI_How_the_Court_Treated_the_Authorities_Before_It\" >VI. How the Court Treated the Authorities Before It<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#VII_Fortifying_the_Ratio_Supporting_Authority\" >VII. Fortifying the Ratio: Supporting Authority<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#1_Ambiguity_in_a_Charging_Provision_Favours_the_Assessee\" >1. Ambiguity in a Charging Provision Favours the Assessee<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#2_The_Burden_of_Showing_the_Goods_Fall_in_the_Taxing_Entry_Lies_on_the_Revenue\" >2. The Burden of Showing the Goods Fall in the Taxing Entry Lies on the Revenue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#2A_End_Use_Is_Irrelevant_Unless_the_Entry_Itself_Makes_It_Relevant\" >2A. End Use Is Irrelevant Unless the Entry Itself Makes It Relevant<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#3_The_Residuary_Entry_A_Last_Resort_and_a_Two-Way_Rule\" >3. The Residuary Entry: A Last Resort, and a Two-Way Rule<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#4_%E2%80%9CBeverage%E2%80%9D_Means_a_Liquid\" >4. \u201cBeverage\u201d Means a Liquid<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#5_Ejusdem_Generis_and_the_Associated_Words\" >5. Ejusdem Generis and the Associated Words<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#6_Common_Parlance_A_Tool_for_Undefined_Words_Not_a_Licence_to_Import_End_Use\" >6. Common Parlance: A Tool for Undefined Words, Not a Licence to Import End Use<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#VIII_Counter-Currents_and_Limits\" >VIII. Counter-Currents and Limits<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Mauri_Yeast_Paras_37_and_41\" >Mauri Yeast (Paras 37 and 41)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Hamdard_Wakf_Laboratories_2026_INSC_195\" >Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, 2026 INSC 195<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Dilip_Kumar\" >Dilip Kumar<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#IX_Ratio_Decidendi\" >IX. Ratio Decidendi<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#X_Practical_Implications\" >X. Practical Implications<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#XI_Practitioners_Checklist\" >XI. Practitioner\u2019s Checklist<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#XII_Critical_Analysis\" >XII. Critical Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Legislative_Classification_and_the_Tax_Base\" >Legislative Classification and the Tax Base<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#Certainty_in_Tax_Classification\" >Certainty in Tax Classification<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#A_Caution_on_the_ejusdem_generis_Reasoning\" >A Caution on the ejusdem generis Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#A_Supporting_Textual_Point_the_Court_Did_Not_Rely_On\" >A Supporting Textual Point the Court Did Not Rely On<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#The_Limits_of_the_Cadila_Principle\" >The Limits of the Cadila Principle<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#XIII_Conclusion\" >XIII. Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#XIV_Citation_Table\" >XIV. Citation Table<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Tax v. Cadila Health Care Ltd., 2026 INSC 1078 (Civil Appeal Nos. 9788\u20139789 of 2013, decided 5 October 2026), a Bench of Manmohan and Arun Palli, JJ. held that \u201cGRD Powder\u201d and \u201cGRD Mix\u201d could not be taxed as \u201cnon-alcoholic drinks and beverages\u201d merely because the packaging told buyers to stir them into milk or water. Sold as powder and biscuit, they fell in the residuary entry at 8%, not the beverage entry at 10%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling matters beyond two products. It fixes the taxable event, the identity of the goods at that moment, the role of the common-parlance test, and the limited place of end use in indirect-tax classification. This treatise states the ratio with paragraph pinpoints, tests each authority the Court touched, and adds a verified line of supporting and limiting precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-ii-the-case-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"II_The_Case_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>II. The Case at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Item<\/th><th>Particulars<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><th>Case<\/th><td>Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. and Another<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Citation<\/th><td>2026 INSC 1078; Civil Appeal Nos. 9788\u20139789 of 2013<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Decided<\/th><td>5 October 2026; judgment authored by Manmohan, J. (with Arun Palli, J.)<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Appeal from<\/th><td>Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 3 August 2011 in W.P. Nos. 3020 and 4633 of 2003<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Statute<\/th><td>Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994; assessment year 1997\u20131998<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Competing entries<\/th><td>Entry 20(ii), Part IV, Schedule II (10%) v. residuary Entry 1, Part VII, Schedule II (8%)<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Outcome<\/th><td>Appeals dismissed; GRD Powder and GRD Mix classified under the residuary entry at 8%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-iii-facts-and-statutory-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"III_Facts_and_Statutory_Background\"><\/span>III. Facts and Statutory Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cadila manufactured and marketed GRD Powder and GRD Mix, sold across the counter as powder and biscuit. The Revenue pointed to the graphics and instructions on the goods, which told the consumer to dilute them with milk or water, and argued they were health drinks. Cadila answered that what it sold was a dry product and that the charging schedule reached only goods it specified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Entry 20(ii) of Part IV, Schedule II, taxed at 10%, reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cAll kinds of non-alcoholic drinks and beverages including syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences when sold in sealed or capsuled or cork bottles or jars.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Entry 20(ii), Part IV, Schedule II, Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Part VII, Entry 1 taxed, at 8%, \u201call other goods not included in Schedule I or any other part of this Schedule\u201d. The High Court accepted Cadila\u2019s classification under the residuary entry; the State appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-iv-issues-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IV_Issues_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>IV. Issues Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>What is the taxable event, and must tax follow the form of the goods at the time of sale or the end product the consumer prepares?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Can GRD Powder and GRD Mix be classified as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages, or do they fall in the residuary entry?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-v-the-decision-and-its-reasoning\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"V_The_Decision_and_Its_Reasoning\"><\/span>V. The Decision and Its Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-a-strict-construction-of-taxing-statutes-para-15\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Strict_Construction_of_Taxing_Statutes_Para_15\"><\/span>A. Strict Construction of Taxing Statutes (Para 15)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court began with the rule that taxing statutes are strictly construed: no intention is assumed beyond the plain language, nothing is read in, and a literal reading is adopted unless the text is ambiguous or absurd. Footnote 1 draws on the Constitution Bench in Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667, which requires the statute to show clearly the subject of the tax, the person liable and the rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-b-the-taxable-event-is-supply-the-form-at-supply-decides-paras-16-19\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_The_Taxable_Event_Is_Supply_the_Form_at_Supply_Decides_Paras_16%E2%80%9319\"><\/span>B. The Taxable Event Is Supply; the Form at Supply Decides (Paras 16\u201319)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that the taxable event is the act of supply, and that incidence is fixed by the nature of the good in the form in which it is sold (para 16, footnoting Commissioner of Central Excise v. Carrier Aircon Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 596). Tax authorities look at what is supplied, not its end use. A protein powder sold dry attracts the powder rate; a bottled cold coffee or packaged protein shake attracts the beverage rate (para 17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Later use does not move the taxable event. The same protein powder might be stirred into a drink or used to make an Indian milk-based fudge (barfi) eaten as a solid (para 18). Classification therefore rests on the form at the time of sale, not on the consumer\u2019s later choice (para 19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-c-entry-20-ii-is-an-entry-for-liquids-paras-20-21-23\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_Entry_20ii_Is_an_Entry_for_Liquids_Paras_20%E2%80%9321_23\"><\/span>C. Entry 20(ii) Is an Entry for Liquids (Paras 20\u201321, 23)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cBeverages\u201d is followed by syrups, cordials, distilled juice, ark and essences. The common thread is that all are liquids or liquid preparations capable of being bottled, stored and consumed in liquid form (para 20). Entry 20(ii) says nothing of end use; it classifies by physical characteristic and form, so the identity of the goods at sale is decisive (para 21). Applying ejusdem generis, \u201cbeverages\u201d takes its meaning from its associates and cannot stretch to goods of a different physical form (para 23).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-d-common-parlance-functional-and-basic-nature-tests-para-22\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"D_Common_Parlance_Functional_and_Basic-Nature_Tests_Para_22\"><\/span>D. Common Parlance, Functional and Basic-Nature Tests (Para 22)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that the common-parlance, functional and basic-nature tests cannot be used to import an end-use concept so as to override or bypass explicit or implicit statutory guidance, particularly where the language of the entry is clear. The rule is thus a limit on how those tests are used, not their abolition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-e-residuary-entry-para-24-and-conclusion-para-29\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"E_Residuary_Entry_Para_24_and_Conclusion_Para_29\"><\/span>E. Residuary Entry (Para 24) and Conclusion (Para 29)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Goods that do not answer the description of a specific entry must fall in the residuary entry and cannot be forced into an inapposite specific entry merely to attract a higher rate (para 24). At the time of the taxable event the goods were powder and biscuit; they might later become a beverage or a solid preparation, but they were not beverages when sold (para 29).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-vi-how-the-court-treated-the-authorities-before-it\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VI_How_the_Court_Treated_the_Authorities_Before_It\"><\/span>VI. How the Court Treated the Authorities Before It<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment engages some decisions expressly and leaves others at the level of counsel\u2019s submissions. The table separates the two, since an article that credits the Court with reasoning it did not record invites an easy rebuttal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Authority<\/th><th>Raised By<\/th><th>Treatment in the Judgment<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Pioma Industries v. State of Kerala, (2008) 12 SCC 695<\/td><td>Revenue (para 9)<\/td><td>Distinguished (para 26). The \u201cRasna\u201d classification was not adjudicated because the matter was remanded; and Entry 87 there expressly covered \u201cpowders, tablets and concentrates\u201d for non-alcoholic drinks. The M.P. legislature, aware powders could be deemed in, chose not to do so.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>S. Samuel M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 256<\/td><td>Revenue (para 11)<\/td><td>Distinguished (para 27). No competing entries; the issue was whether tea is a foodstuff, not whether tea leaves in granule or powder form are themselves a beverage.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 306 (2026 INSC 195)<\/td><td>Revenue (para 10)<\/td><td>Distinguished (para 28). The sharbat was a liquid, so it could be placed in a beverage entry. Separately, \u201cincluding\u201d does not mean \u201call encompassing\u201d, and the word \u201cbeverages\u201d must be read in context.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Atul Glass Industries v. Collector of Excise, (1986) 3 SCC 480; Indian Aluminium Cables v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 284<\/td><td>Revenue (paras 7\u20138)<\/td><td>Not separately distinguished. Para 22 disposes of the common-use, functional and basic-nature tests together, holding they cannot import end use against clear statutory language.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 241<\/td><td>Cadila (para 13)<\/td><td>Cited by counsel only. Para 21 reaches a consistent result (an entry with no reference to use cannot be read as an end-use entry), but the Court does not rely on Dunlop in terms.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Collector of Central Excise, (1999) 6 SCC 617<\/td><td>Cadila (para 14)<\/td><td>Cited by counsel for the proposition that a beverage is a liquid at the time of the taxable event. Not discussed in the reasoning.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mathuram Agrawal, (1999) 8 SCC 667; Carrier Aircon, (2006) 5 SCC 596<\/td><td>Court (fns 1, 2)<\/td><td>Adopted by the Court in the footnotes to paras 15 and 16, with the passages reproduced.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-vii-fortifying-the-ratio-supporting-authority\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VII_Fortifying_the_Ratio_Supporting_Authority\"><\/span>VII. Fortifying the Ratio: Supporting Authority<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-1-ambiguity-in-a-charging-provision-favours-the-assessee\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Ambiguity_in_a_Charging_Provision_Favours_the_Assessee\"><\/span>1. Ambiguity in a Charging Provision Favours the Assessee<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Constitution Bench in Mathuram Agrawal (decided 28 October 1999 by a five-Judge Bench) holds that if the statute leaves the subject, the person liable or the rate unclear, there is no tax in law. The later Constitution Bench in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 (30 July 2018) confirms that every taxing provision is read strictly, but that ambiguity in a charging provision goes to the assessee, whereas ambiguity in an exemption notification goes to the Revenue. Dilip Kumar was itself a classification dispute over a powder product (feed-grade Vitamin E50), which makes it a natural companion citation here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-2-the-burden-of-showing-the-goods-fall-in-the-taxing-entry-lies-on-the-revenue\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_The_Burden_of_Showing_the_Goods_Fall_in_the_Taxing_Entry_Lies_on_the_Revenue\"><\/span>2. The Burden of Showing the Goods Fall in the Taxing Entry Lies on the Revenue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1997) 2 SCC 677 (para 4), the Court treated it as beyond dispute that the onus of bringing the goods within the tariff item lay on the Revenue, which had led no evidence. The same rule appears in Collector of Central Excise v. Garware Nylons Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 413 (para 15), HPL Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2006) 5 SCC 208 (para 28) and Voltas Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 7 SCC 527 (para 26).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Application:<\/strong> the Revenue\u2019s case in Cadila rested on the graphics and mixing instructions on the pack (paras 2 and 6), which is an end-use argument. Where the entry carries no use criterion, that material cannot discharge the Revenue\u2019s burden. This is my synthesis; the Court in Cadila does not frame the point as one of burden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-2a-end-use-is-irrelevant-unless-the-entry-itself-makes-it-relevant\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2A_End_Use_Is_Irrelevant_Unless_the_Entry_Itself_Makes_It_Relevant\"><\/span>2A. End Use Is Irrelevant Unless the Entry Itself Makes It Relevant<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In Dunlop India (decided 6 October 1975; three-Judge Bench), the Court held that where the entry makes no reference to use or adaptation, end use is \u201cabsolutely irrelevant\u201d for classification. Carrier Aircon (reproduced in fn 2 of Cadila) adds that end use alone cannot determine classification; the relevant factors include the statutory fiscal entry and the basic character, function and use of the goods. Read together, they explain why para 21 of Cadila turns on the fact that Entry 20(ii) speaks of physical form, not use. Mauri Yeast (para 43) records the same Carrier Aircon proposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-3-the-residuary-entry-a-last-resort-and-a-two-way-rule\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_The_Residuary_Entry_A_Last_Resort_and_a_Two-Way_Rule\"><\/span>3. The Residuary Entry: A Last Resort, and a Two-Way Rule<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2008) 5 SCC 680 (decided 10 April 2008, S.B. Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.) holds that an entry must first be tested against the goods and the residuary entry is taken only \u201cby way of last resort\u201d (para 30). Where two entries compete, the specific one is preferred (para 48). Para 49 reproduces Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd., (1990) 1 SCC 532, which allows resort to a residuary item only where the Department cannot show, by any conceivable reasoning, that the goods fit a specific item.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cadila (para 24) supplies the mirror rule. The residuary entry is not only a last resort for the assessee\u2019s opponent to avoid; it is also the proper home of goods that do not answer a specific entry\u2019s description, and the Revenue cannot stretch a specific entry to reach a higher rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-4-beverage-means-a-liquid\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_%E2%80%9CBeverage%E2%80%9D_Means_a_Liquid\"><\/span>4. \u201cBeverage\u201d Means a Liquid<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, (1999) 6 SCC 617 (para 5) describes beverages, broadly speaking, as liquids for drinking other than water, consumed neat or after dilution. The phrase \u201cafter dilution\u201d describes a liquid being diluted, not a dry product being dissolved, which fits the Court\u2019s liquid reading of Entry 20(ii) in paras 20 and 29. The respondent relied on this precise passage (para 14).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-5-ejusdem-generis-and-the-associated-words\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Ejusdem_Generis_and_the_Associated_Words\"><\/span>5. Ejusdem Generis and the Associated Words<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Tripura, (1972) 2 SCC 442 (AIR 1972 SC 1863) is the standard source for the conditions of the rule: an enumeration of specific words, forming a class that the enumeration does not exhaust, followed by a general term, with no sign of a contrary intent. See Part XII below for why the word order in Entry 20(ii) makes noscitur a sociis the closer fit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-6-common-parlance-a-tool-for-undefined-words-not-a-licence-to-import-end-use\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Common_Parlance_A_Tool_for_Undefined_Words_Not_a_Licence_to_Import_End_Use\"><\/span>6. Common Parlance: A Tool for Undefined Words, Not a Licence to Import End Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Undefined words in a taxing entry are read as people in trade and daily life use them, not scientifically. Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, AIR 1961 SC 1325 held betel leaves are not \u201cvegetables\u201d; Motipur Zamindary Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 660 applied the rule to sugarcane; and State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed, (1977) 2 SCC 246 held green ginger is a vegetable in common parlance. These cases show the test cuts both ways and is about the meaning of the word. Cadila (para 22) adds that it cannot be used to graft a use-based meaning onto an entry whose language points to form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-viii-counter-currents-and-limits\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VIII_Counter-Currents_and_Limits\"><\/span>VIII. Counter-Currents and Limits<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A treatise that cites only agreeing authority would not survive cross-examination. Three lines of authority limit Cadila, and the first is the most important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-mauri-yeast-paras-37-and-41\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mauri_Yeast_Paras_37_and_41\"><\/span>Mauri Yeast (Paras 37 and 41)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Mauri Yeast<\/em> (paras 37 and 41). The Court there said no single test, whether common parlance, user or any other, is decisive in every case, and that trade meaning or end-user context can be a relevant factor. Cadila is consistent with this if read as confined to entries, like Entry 20(ii), whose words describe form and say nothing of use (para 22 expressly limits itself to \u201cclear and unambiguous\u201d language). Both are two-Judge decisions, so a litigant facing an entry that is ambiguous or use-linked can cite Mauri Yeast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-2026-insc-195\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Hamdard_Wakf_Laboratories_2026_INSC_195\"><\/span>Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, 2026 INSC 195<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories<\/em>, 2026 INSC 195 (25 February 2026; B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.). The Court classified Sharbat Rooh Afza as a fruit drink under the UPVAT Act, treating the product\u2019s nature, composition and commercial identity as decisive and noting that the authorities relied on licensing norms and nomenclature rather than evidence of commercial perception. Cadila (para 28) distinguishes it because the sharbat was a liquid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-dilip-kumar\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dilip_Kumar\"><\/span>Dilip Kumar<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Dilip Kumar<\/em>. If the entry in a given case is a concessional or exemption entry, ambiguity is resolved for the Revenue, not the assessee. Check how the entry is characterised before relying on the assessee-favouring rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-ix-ratio-decidendi\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IX_Ratio_Decidendi\"><\/span>IX. Ratio Decidendi<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The taxable event is the sale or supply of goods (para 16).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Classification is ordinarily fixed by the form and identity of the goods at the time of sale (paras 17, 19, 21).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Later use by the consumer does not alter classification at the taxable event (para 18).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A powder or biscuit that may be mixed with water or milk does not thereby become a beverage under Entry 20(ii) (para 29).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cBeverages\u201d in Entry 20(ii) takes its meaning from the associated liquid items (paras 20, 23).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Common-parlance, functional and basic-nature tests cannot import an end-use concept against clear statutory language (para 22).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Goods not covered by a specific entry fall in the residuary entry and cannot be forced into a specific entry to raise the rate (para 24).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-x-practical-implications\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"X_Practical_Implications\"><\/span>X. Practical Implications<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The table applies the reasoning to common fact patterns. The \u201clikely treatment\u201d column is my reading of the judgment, not a holding, and each answer depends on the wording of the entry in the particular statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Product as Sold<\/th><th>Likely Treatment Under an Entry Worded Like 20(ii)<\/th><th>Basis<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Protein or health-drink powder sold dry<\/td><td>Powder or residuary rate, not beverage<\/td><td>Paras 17\u201318: tax follows the form at sale<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Ready-to-drink bottled coffee or packaged protein shake<\/td><td>Beverage<\/td><td>Para 17: liquid supplied<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Biscuit or bar sold with drink-mix instructions<\/td><td>Classified as the biscuit or bar sold<\/td><td>Paras 19, 29: form at sale governs<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Syrup, cordial or other liquid preparation named in the entry<\/td><td>Within the entry, if it meets the sale-container wording<\/td><td>Para 20: liquids and liquid preparations<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Statute whose entry expressly covers powders, tablets or concentrates for beverages<\/td><td>Beverage entry may apply<\/td><td>Para 26 (Pioma, Entry 87): the legislature can deem powders in<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Entry that makes use or purpose the test<\/td><td>End use may be relevant<\/td><td>Para 22 limits itself to clear form-based language; see Carrier Aircon (fn 2)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-xi-practitioner-s-checklist\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"XI_Practitioners_Checklist\"><\/span>XI. Practitioner\u2019s Checklist<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Read the exact words of the competing entries; list the associated items in the beverage-type entry and note whether they are all liquids.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Establish the form in which the goods leave the dealer: invoice, price list, packaging and sealing, not marketing material.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Check whether the entry mentions use, purpose, adaptation, \u201cused for preparing\u201d or \u201cmixes\u201d; if so, Cadila para 22 may not apply.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Check whether the legislature elsewhere in the same statute or an earlier version deemed powders or concentrates in, as in Pioma (para 26).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Put the Revenue to proof of how it places the goods in the entry (Hindustan Ferodo), rather than meeting packaging imagery with counter-imagery.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Check whether the entry is charging or concessional (Dilip Kumar) before invoking the benefit of ambiguity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pre-empt Mauri Yeast paras 37 and 41 if the opposing side argues end-user context is relevant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Confirm the period: this was a pre-GST state entry. Under GST, classification follows the tariff and its interpretative rules, so the reasoning should be adapted, not transplanted.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-xii-critical-analysis\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"XII_Critical_Analysis\"><\/span>XII. Critical Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-legislative-classification-and-the-tax-base\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legislative_Classification_and_the_Tax_Base\"><\/span>Legislative Classification and the Tax Base<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The boundary is principled. The ruling keeps legislative classification apart from administrative enlargement of the tax base. If a legislature wants every beverage-making product taxed as a beverage it can say so, as the Kerala entry in Pioma did. Courts should not do that by treating anything that can be stirred into milk as a beverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-certainty-in-tax-classification\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Certainty_in_Tax_Classification\"><\/span>Certainty in Tax Classification<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It gives certainty. Liability should be knowable when the goods are supplied. If tax turned on what each buyer later does, one product could attract different rates depending on private habit, which is especially awkward for supplements that are drunk, baked into desserts or used as ingredients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-a-caution-on-the-ejusdem-generis-reasoning\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Caution_on_the_ejusdem_generis_Reasoning\"><\/span>A Caution on the <em>ejusdem generis<\/em> Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A caution on the <em>ejusdem generis<\/em> reasoning. In the classical rule the general word comes after the specific words. In Entry 20(ii) the general expression \u201cdrinks and beverages\u201d comes first and the specific liquids follow after \u201cincluding\u201d. The rule\u2019s conditions (see Amar Chandra) are therefore not squarely met, and noscitur a sociis, which reads a word by its companions, is the closer description of what the Court did in paras 20 and 23. The result survives the relabelling, but a careful opponent may press the point. This observation is mine and not the Court\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-a-supporting-textual-point-the-court-did-not-rely-on\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Supporting_Textual_Point_the_Court_Did_Not_Rely_On\"><\/span>A Supporting Textual Point the Court Did Not Rely On<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A supporting textual point the Court did not rely on. Entry 20(ii) covers goods \u201cwhen sold in sealed or capsuled or cork bottles or jars\u201d, language that itself suggests liquids. The reported judgment does not rest on it, so cite it as an argument, not as holding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-the-limits-of-the-cadila-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Limits_of_the_Cadila_Principle\"><\/span>The Limits of the Cadila Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The limits are real. Cadila is a rule against using end use to widen a clear entry; it is not a rule that physical form is always the only criterion. Where the statute names use, composition, function or preparation, those factors can matter, and Mauri Yeast shows that trade and end-user context remain live where the entry is open-textured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-xiii-conclusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"XIII_Conclusion\"><\/span>XIII. Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cadila Health Care settles that the classification of goods is ordinarily fixed at the taxable event, the point of sale or supply. GRD Powder and GRD Mix were sold as powder and biscuit; mixing them with milk or water later did not make them beverages under Entry 20(ii), so the residuary entry at 8% applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision rests on Mathuram Agrawal and Carrier Aircon in the Court\u2019s own footnotes, and is consistent with Dunlop, Hindustan Ferodo and Mauri Yeast on end use, burden and the residuary entry. It distinguishes Pioma, S. Samuel and Hamdard (2026) on their entries and facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Tax authorities must classify what is sold, not what the consumer may later make from it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-xiv-citation-table\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"XIV_Citation_Table\"><\/span>XIV. Citation Table<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case or Authority<\/th><th>Relevant Principle or Reference<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Cadila Health Care, 2026 INSC 1078<\/td><td>Ratio, paras 15\u201329<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mauri Yeast, (2008) 5 SCC 680; AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 190<\/td><td>Residuary last resort (paras 30, 48); no decisive test (37, 41); Carrier Aircon (43)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, 2026 INSC 195; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 306<\/td><td>Rooh Afza a fruit drink; commercial identity; liquid product<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mathuram Agrawal, (1999) 8 SCC 667<\/td><td>Three components of a tax law; Constitution Bench<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Carrier Aircon, (2006) 5 SCC 596<\/td><td>End use not determinative alone<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Hindustan Ferodo, (1997) 2 SCC 677<\/td><td>Onus on Revenue (para 4)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Ramavatar Budhaiprasad, AIR 1961 SC 1325; Motipur Zamindary, AIR 1962 SC 660; Washi Ahmed, (1977) 2 SCC 246<\/td><td>Common parlance for undefined words<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Pioma, S. Samuel, Atul Glass, Indian Aluminium Cables<\/td><td>As recorded in Cadila paras 7\u201311, 25\u201328<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dunlop India, (1976) 2 SCC 241 (AIR 1977 SC 597)<\/td><td>End use irrelevant where entry silent<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dilip Kumar, (2018) 9 SCC 1<\/td><td>Ambiguity: charging provision for assessee; exemption for Revenue<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Decided 30.7.2018, Constitution Bench<\/td><td><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Garware Nylons, (1996) 10 SCC 413; HPL Chemicals, (2006) 5 SCC 208; Voltas, (2015) 7 SCC 527<\/td><td>Burden on Revenue (paras 15, 28, 26)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Bharat Forge, (1990) 1 SCC 532<\/td><td>Residuary item only if no specific item fits<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. CCE, (1999) 6 SCC 617<\/td><td>Beverages are liquids (para 5)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Amar Chandra Chakraborty, (1972) 2 SCC 442<\/td><td>Conditions for ejusdem generis<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By: Inder Chand Jain<\/strong><br>Ph no: 8279945021, Email: inderjain2007@rediffmail.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-divine-balance-understanding-the-wisdom-and-structure-of-islamic-inheritance\/\">The Divine Balance: Understanding the Wisdom and Structure of Islamic Inheritance<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jane-kaushik-v-union-of-india-a-critical-analysis-of-transgender-rights-and-discrimination-in-employment\/\">Jane Kaushik v. Union of India: A Critical Analysis of Transgender Rights and Discrimination in Employment<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-global-powdered-facial-toners-market-is-projected-to-reach-a-valuation-of-usd-24-4-billion-by-2036-accelerating-from-usd-15-0-billion-in-2026-at-a-5-0-cagr\/\">Powdered Facial Toners Market to Reach USD 24.4 Billion by 2036 | 5% CAGR Growth Forecast<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-vs-property-mark-india-case-laws-legal-differences\/\">Trademark vs Property Mark in India: Legal Differences, Case Laws, Trade Marks Act &amp; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Explained<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-contact-to-conviction-the-life-cycle-of-latent-fingerprint-evidence\/\">From Contact to Conviction: The Life Cycle of Latent Fingerprint Evidence<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use Supreme Court Clarifies the Law in Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed a principle of fiscal interpretation that taxpayers and tax officers meet every day: goods are classified for tax in the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[96],"tags":[3386],"class_list":["post-33960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-tax-laws","tag-tax-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v28.6 (Yoast SEO v28.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Tax classification depends on product form at sale, not end use. Explore the Supreme Court ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Tax classification depends on product form at sale, not end use. Explore the Supreme Court ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-12T07:33:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-12T07:37:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Inder Jain\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Inder Jain\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Inder Jain\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20\"},\"headline\":\"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-12T07:33:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-12T07:37:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3441,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Tax laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Tax laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/\",\"name\":\"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-12T07:33:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-12T07:37:48+00:00\",\"description\":\"Tax classification depends on product form at sale, not end use. Explore the Supreme Court ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tax Law > Cadila Health Care Judgment 2026: Supreme Court Clarifies Tax Classification of Goods\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20\",\"name\":\"Inder Jain\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"Inder Jain\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/inderjain\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Tax classification depends on product form at sale, not end use. Explore the Supreme Court ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use","og_description":"Tax classification depends on product form at sale, not end use. Explore the Supreme Court ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-10-12T07:33:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-12T07:37:48+00:00","author":"Inder Jain","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Inder Jain","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/"},"author":{"name":"Inder Jain","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20"},"headline":"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use","datePublished":"2026-10-12T07:33:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-12T07:37:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/"},"wordCount":3441,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Tax laws"],"articleSection":["Tax laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/","name":"Tax Classification Depends on Product Form at Sale, Not End Use - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-10-12T07:33:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-12T07:37:48+00:00","description":"Tax classification depends on product form at sale, not end use. Explore the Supreme Court ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tax-classification-depends-on-product-form-at-sale-not-end-use\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tax Law > Cadila Health Care Judgment 2026: Supreme Court Clarifies Tax Classification of Goods"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20","name":"Inder Jain","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"Inder Jain"},"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/inderjain\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33960"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33960\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34154,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33960\/revisions\/34154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}