[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reckitt Benckiser Pvt. Ltd. vs Commercal Tax on 10 December, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 VATA-1-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
VATA No. 1 of 2021
(RECKITT BENCKISER PVT. LTD. Vs COMMERCAL TAX )
Dated : 10-12-2025
Appellant by Shri R. Jawaharlal - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Sudeep Bhargava -
Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Advocate General.
Heard on the question of admission.
The present appeal filed under Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh
Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the MPVAT Act) is
admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law: -
A. Whether the Tax Board erred in not appreciating the
submissions of the Appellant (including reliance on the
binding Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
10.04.2023 in respect of classification of Dettol), in the
Impugned Order dated 20.03.2025, and merely followed
its earlier Order dated 23.01.2018 (dismissing the
appeals in respect of previous assessment orders which
are subject matter of Appeals before this Hon'ble
Court)?
B. Whether the Tax Board erred in not appreciating
that products are to be classified under the enumerated
specific entry, and only if it does not fall within any of
the enumerated specific entry, it can be classified under
the residuary entry?
C. Whether Harpic Disinfectant Toilet Cleaner (Harpic)
and Lizol Disinfectant Floor Cleaner (Lizol)
manufactured and marketed under a Drug License as a
'disinfectant'; is classifiable as 'insecticide' (based on
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay
Chemicals (1995 Supp (2) SCC 646) and Judgments of
several other Hon'ble High Courts under similar entries
other VAT Acts), under Entry 24 of Part II of Schedule
II to the MPVAT Act and consequently under Entry 1
of Part I of Schedule II to the Entry Tax Act?
D. Whether Dettol Antiseptic Liquid (Dettol),
manufactured under a Drug License, is classifiable as a
"drugs and medicine" (in the light of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 10.04.2023,
2 VATA-1-2021
in the light of similar entry under Kerala VAT Act)
under Entry 19A of Part II, of Schedule II to the
MPVAT Act and consequently under Entry 1 of Part I
of Schedule II to the Entry Tax Act?
E. Whether Dettol Hygiene Liquid (DHL),
manufactured under a Drug License as a disinfectant
(due to its germ-killing capability); therefore an
"insecticide" classifiable under Entry 24 of Part II of
Schedule II to the MPVAT Act and consequently under
Entry 1 of Part I of Schedule II to the Entry Tax Act?
F. Whether Dettol Hand Sanitizer (DHS) manufactured
under a Drug License, and its sale price was fixed as a
drug/essential commodity, during COVID-19 pandemic
as a "drug and medicine" under Entry 19A of Part II of
Schedule II to the MPVAT Act and consequently under
Entry 1 of Part I of Schedule II to the Entry Tax Act?
G. Whether Strepsils manufactured and marketed under
a Drug License, is a "drug and medicine" falling under
Entry 19A of Part II of Schedule II to the MPVAT Act
(in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in
Warmer Hindustan Limited (1999) 6 SCC 762) and this
Hon'ble Court judgment in Panama Chemical Works
(2004) 9 SCC 136), and consequently under Entry 1 of
Part I of Schedule II to the Entry Tax Act?
H. Whether Fybogel (used for relieving constipation
and promoting regular bowel movements),
manufactured and marketed under a Drug License, is
classifiable under Entry 1 of Part I of Schedule II to the
Entry Tax Act, especially when its classification as a
"drug and medicine" was accepted by the Department
under Entry 19A of Part II of Schedule II to the
MPVAT Act even for the relevant assessment years?
I. Whether Harpic, Lizol, Dettol, DHL, DHS, Strepsils
are classifiable under the residual entry i.e., Part IV of
Schedule II to the MPVAT Act, as held by the Tax
Board in the Impugned Judgment?
J. Whether interest can be levied under Section 18(4)
(a) of the MPVAT Act, only in case of (a) failure to pay
the tax payable as per return, filed in the prescribed
manner or; (b) filing of revised return showing higher
amount of tax payable than shown in the original return;
or (c) failure to furnish the return and whether Section
18 (4) (a) of the MPVAT Act can be invoked when the
Appellant has deposited applicable VAT based on
bonafide classification, under the MPVAT Act and such
classification is reflected in its monthly as well as
Annual Returns, to the knowledge of the Department?
Since the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore is
already represented by the learned Deputy Advocate General, therefore, no
3 VATA-1-2021
notice is required to be issued to the respondent.
Let a copy of the appeal memo along with annexures be supplied to
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
rcp
