Chewing gum is not an eatable item says Gujarat HC: Bubble gum is not swallowed hence it attracts higher 12.5% tax, rules court

Gujarat High Court has held that chewing gum and bubble gum cannot be treated as edible sweets or confectionery items for Value Added Tax calculations. A division bench ruled that simply because a product yields a sweet juice or flavor while chewed, it does not acquire the status of an eatable item when the main substance is routinely spat out rather than consumed, as per TOI.

The verdict sets aside a previous decision by the state VAT tribunal that had granted tax relief to a local confectionery manufacturer. By upholding the state government’s assessment, the court confirmed that sales of chewing gum fall under the general residuary category, making them liable for 12.5% VAT instead of the lower 4% concessionary rate reserved for traditional sweets and sweetmeats.

What triggered tax dispute

The legal conflict traces back to February 2007, when a commercial tax officer conducted a routine inspection at the manufacturing premises of Cad Mak Chew Foods, according to TOI. The firm was engaged in producing peppermint, sugar candy, traditional sugar products known as sakariya, and chewing gum.


Following a detailed scrutiny of sales records and product characteristics, the assessing officer issued an order in 2011 holding that chewing gum sales were misclassified by the firm. The officer raised a total demand of Rs 9.83 lakh after applying the 12.5% VAT rate along with statutory interest and penalties, ruling that chewing gum did not qualify for the 4% rate listed under Entry 74A of Schedule II of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

How tribunal viewed product earlier

When the manufacturer challenged the assessment order, a deputy commissioner confirmed the application of the higher 12.5% tax rate while offering partial relief by reducing the penalty amount. Unhappy with the outcome, the company approached the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal to seek a full waiver and proper classification of its product.

In 2014, the tribunal ruled in favor of the manufacturer and erased the extra tax demand. The tribunal reasoned that consumers purchase bubble gum primarily to extract its sweet flavor and juice, concluding that even though the rubber base is thrown away at the end, the item does not lose its character as an eatable product while in the mouth.

Why state took matter to high court

Unwilling to accept the tribunal’s interpretation, the Gujarat state government filed an official tax appeal before the high court. Revenue officials maintained that chewing gum is nowhere explicitly listed under Entry 74A, which was specifically designed by lawmakers to cover standard sweets and sweetmeats.

Representing the revenue department, government counsel argued that classification under commercial tax statutes must follow established Supreme Court precedents on the common parlance test. Under this principle, goods must be categorized based on how everyday consumers and trade channels understand them, rather than technical extractions or partial usage habits. The state insisted that chewing gum belongs under residuary Entry 87, which carries the higher 12.5% tax liability.

What high court bench held

A division bench comprising Justice Bhargav Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi thoroughly evaluated statutory entries, tribunal findings, and judicial precedents before arriving at its decision. The bench observed that the tribunal committed a fundamental legal error by equating flavor extraction with actual consumption of food items.

The judges noted that Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly clarified that non-edible products cannot be pulled into tax entries created for food and sweets. Because the rubber matrix forming the core of chewing gum is never swallowed or digested, the product fails the basic test of being an eatable commodity. The bench formally answered both legal questions in favor of the revenue department and restored the original tax liabilities.

(Inputs from TOI)