IMPORTANT POINT
Glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notification dated 30.4.1992 under Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 and as such liable to 2% tax.

JUDGMENT

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-These appeals by Special Leave are filed by the dealers in glass and plastic bangles. The question which has been raised in these appeals is as regards the validity of imposition of entry tax on glass and plastic bangles under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short the Act ).

2. The State Government on 30th April, 1992 notified various commodities for purpose of levy of entry tax. Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the notification are relevant for the purposes of disposal of these appeals.

Entry 30 : Glass sheets and all articles made of glass.

Entry 64 : Plastic sheets, granules and articles made from all kinds of and all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene and the like materials. It appears that one of the bangle merchants sought clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as to whether "glass bangles and plastic bangles" would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and is subject to entry tax at 2%. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 21st July, 1992 in exercise of his powers under Section 12(7) of the Entry Tax Act clarified that glass bangles and plastic bangles would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and is subject to entry tax at 2%. Consequent upon the said clarification, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax made an assessment order for 1992-93 and demanded entry tax on bangles. The appellants aggrieved by the assessment orders preferred various writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. The Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties by his common judgment and order dated 15th March, 1995 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the assessment order made against the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the respondents herein aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge preferred writ appeals before the High Court. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court after hearing the parties vide its common judgment and order dated 22nd June, 1998 allowed these appeals and held that the glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and are subject to entry tax at 2%. Consequently, the learned Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is against this common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

3. Chapter 2 of the said Act deals with the levy of tax. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that there shall be levied and collected tax on entry of any goods specified in the first schedule into a local area for consumption, used or sale therein at such rates which may be prescribed by the State Government by issuance of a Notification. Different dates could be specified in respect of different goods or different classes of goods for different local areas. In exercise of this power, the Government of Karnataka issued Notification No. FD. 69 CET.92(i) dated 30th April, 1992. A list was accordingly appended to the Notification containing Entry 30 and Entry 54 which we have already reproduced herein above. It is common ground that these entries correspond to Entry 39 and Entry 70 to the first schedule of the said Act, but for the convenience sake, we shall refer to them as Entry 30 and Entry 54 in this judgment.

4. Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior Advocate appearing in support of these appeals urged that the interpertation given by the learned Single Judge as regards these two entries by following the rule of construction "noscuntur a sociis" is more appropriate and systemic because the words used by the legislature were neither clear nor free from ambiguity. He then contended that the identity of bangles is distinct than the articles of glass. When an article acquires commer