Synthetic SBR latex falls under the specific “rubber” entry, not the residuary category.

Pidilite Industries Limited manufactured and sold Dr. Fixit Pidicrete URP (SBR Latex) and Dr. Fixit Super Latex (SBR Latex), which are synthetic Styrene Butadiene Rubber (“SBR”) latex products used in concrete, mortar, grout, waterproofing and bonding applications.

The assessee claimed that the products were covered by Entry No. 96 of Schedule II-B of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, which covered “Rubber, raw rubber, latex, dry ribbed” and attracted tax at 5%.

The Assessing Authority treated the products as unclassified goods taxable at 13.5%.

The First Appellate Authority granted relief to the assessee, but the Commercial Tax Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 5 June 2025, reversed that decision and restored the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the expression “latex” in Entry No. 96 referred only to natural latex obtained from a rubber plant.

The assessee challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the present revisions, which were heard together as they involved an identical question of law.

The Court applied Entry No. 96 of Schedule II-B of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, which covers “Rubber, raw rubber, latex, dry ribbed” and does not expressly restrict “rubber” to natural rubber or exclude synthetic rubber.

It applied the principle that courts cannot introduce limitations or exclusions that the legislature has not enacted, particularly where other entries in the same Schedule expressly use exclusionary terms such as “other than,” “excluding,” or “except”.

The Court relied on Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 241, which held that a product having a reasonable claim to classification under an enumerated entry should not ordinarily be relegated to a residuary entry.

It also relied on Kesharwani Enterprises v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 397 (Chhattisgarh), for the rule that the Revenue must conclusively establish that goods cannot fall under any specific tariff entry before applying the residuary entry; where two views are possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be adopted.

The Court further applied the principle that classification depends primarily on the identity, nature and character of the goods, and not merely on their end use.

The Court held that the Tribunal had approached the matter too narrowly by focusing only on whether the word “latex” included synthetic latex.

The products were admittedly SBR Latex, and “SBR” denoted Styrene Butadiene Rubber, a form of synthetic rubber.

Since Entry No. 96 used the unqualified expression “rubber,” the Court found no statutory basis for limiting it to natural rubber or rubber obtained from a rubber plant.

The fact that the rubber was synthetically manufactured or presented in latex form did not deprive it of its essential character as rubber.

The Court also observed that the Revenue had neither identified any express exclusion of synthetic rubber from Entry No. 96 nor established that SBR ceased to be rubber because it was synthetic or in latex form.

The products’ use as waterproofing or bonding agents was irrelevant where their intrinsic nature brought them within a specific tariff entry.

Accordingly, the products could not be shifted to the residuary category merely by adopting a restrictive interpretation of Entry No. 96.

It held that 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 by virtue of the expression “rubber” and are taxable accordingly at the prescribed rate of 5%.

The orders of the First Appellate Authority were restored, and the products were held not to be unclassified goods taxable at 13.5%.

The Court expressly declined to decide the alleged conflict or ambiguity between the English and Hindi versions of Entry No. 96, as that question was unnecessary to the decision.