MAM
Telecast of Amul’s misleading frozen dessert ad suspended
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has directed popular FMCG brand Amul to suspend the telecast of the television commercial that showed frozen desserts in a negative light. The court has found the advertisement to be disparaging to HUL’s Kwality Walls brand having a market share of around 51 per cent.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has submitted that the said commercial, along with its transcripts, depicted a child being discouraged from eating frozen dessert on the grounds that it contained vanaspati oil (which is adverse to health). Kwality, in its plaint, however, averred that its frozen desserts do not contain vanaspati, and are made using vegetable fat.
In March 2017, HUL had filed a suit before the Bombay High Court claiming that the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation, which takes care of Amul’s marketing was spreading malicious information about its Kwality products. The court yesterday held that the ad showing the difference between frozen desserts and ice-cream amounted to slander.
The court, in its order, stated that Amul has been restrained from broadcasting, telecasting or otherwise howsoever communicating to the public or publishing two television commercials or any part or any other advertisement of a similar nature, denigrating or disparaging Kwality products, including frozen desserts.
HUL has also charged that the Amul TVC designed to mislead the public into believing that an entire class of products are frozen desserts, and are, therefore, unfit for consumption. According to HUL, a majority of Kwality products sold in India are classified as frozen desserts under the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006.
While deciding the issue, Justice SJ Kathawalla delved into the difference between ice-cream and frozen desserts as per Regulation 2.1.7 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. As per the Regulations, the distinguishing factor between the two is that ice creams must contain over 10% milk fat, whereas frozen desserts must contain over 10% total fat (i.e. milk fat and/or edible vegetable oil).
The law also distinguishes between edible vegetable oil, which the plaintiffs use in their products and hydrogenated vegetable oil, commonly referred to as Vanaspati. After seeing the ad, the court held, “The Defendants have therefore made a false representation to the consumers and also indulged in a negative campaign that no frozen dessert is pure, and only Amul ice cream is pure, as all frozen desserts contain Vanaspati, and are therefore inferior.”
The court also said that the disclaimer of the ad clarifying that “vanaspati” refers to “vegetable oil” was misleading. Moreover, the defendants had issued another ad replacing “vanaspati” with “vanaspati Tel” in the voiceover, which the court said made no difference whatsoever.
The defendants claimed that their TVCs were part of a campaign to educate the consumers about the difference, and were not targeted at denigrating the plaintiff’s products. Justice Kathawalla said: “Any campaign to educate the members of the public by placing before them the true and correct facts/ingredients used in a product should always be welcomed. However, no manufacturer can place misleading information before the consumers qua the product of his rivals, and thereby disparage/discredit/belittle such product including influencing the consumer not to buy the same in the garb of educating and/or bringing the correct facts before the members of the public…”
Brands
Jubilant FoodWorks faces Rs 47.5 crore GST demand, plans appeal
Tax authorities flag alleged misclassification of restaurant services
MUMBAI: Jubilant FoodWorks Limited has landed in a tax tussle after receiving a GST demand of Rs 47.5 crore from the office of the additional commissioner of CGST and central excise in Thane, Maharashtra.
The order, issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relates to an alleged incorrect classification of certain services under the category of restaurant services. According to the tax authorities, this classification resulted in a short payment of goods and services tax for the period between the financial years 2019-20 and 2021-22.
The demand includes Rs 47.5 crore in GST along with an equal amount as penalty, in addition to applicable interest. The order was received by the company on March 13, 2026.
In a regulatory filing to the BSE Limited and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, the company said it disagrees with the order and believes its arguments were not adequately considered.
The company is preparing to challenge the decision and plans to file an appeal. It added that once the redressal process is complete, the demand is likely to be dropped.
Despite the sizeable figure attached to the notice, the company said it does not expect any material impact on its financials, operations or other activities.
The disclosure was signed by Suman Hegde, EVP and chief financial officer, who confirmed that the company received the order at 19:06 IST on March 13 and has already initiated steps to contest it.
The development places the quick service restaurant major in the middle of a tax debate that could hinge on how certain restaurant-linked services are classified under GST rules. For now, the company appears ready to take the matter from the tax office to the appeals desk.
