V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) COMMON question arises for consideration in all these petitions. The question posed for consideration is whether rice bran and de-oiled rice bran cake are one and the same or different products. As per entry 8 (iii) of Part C of the Second Schedule, rice bran is taxed at 2 per cent with effect from April 1, 1997. Part O of Second Schedule, entry 1 deals with oil-cake. Part R of second Schedule, entry 7 deals with rice bran oil. They are separately taxed. The position was that rice bran, which undergoes the process and from which rice bran oil is extracted, is sold thereafter for manufacture of fodder as de-oiled rice bran cake. The department hitherto was assessing the same as rice bran coming under Part C, entry 8 (iii) of Second Schedule. While so, a clarification has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the 2nd respondent herein, to the effect that it does not come within the classification of rice bran provided in the schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and as such, it should be taxed under the residuary clause, namely, Section 5 (1 ). This has given rise to the controversy in these proceedings. The petitioners herein challenge the clarification issued by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes invoking his power under Section 3a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Kishore Mallya and Mr. Nazeer, learned counsel for the petitioners, as also ms. S. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, we will keep in mind the rule of interpretation to be followed while interpreting fiscal statutes and what has been laid down in this behalf by the Supreme Court in many cases. Following the said construction of interpretation, their Lordships in Sri Lakshmi Coconut industries v. State of Karnataka 1980 (2 )Karlj76 , [1980 ]46 STC404 (Kar ), stated as under :

"11. The principles which should be applied in the interpretation of entries in the sales tax laws laid down by the Supreme Court in the various decisions referred to earlier may be summarised as follows : (1) A sales tax statute, being one levying tax on goods, any particular term used to specify an item of goods on which tax is levied, must, not being a term of science or art, be presumed to have been used in the ordinary sense and, therefore, it should be understood according to the meaning ascribed to it at common parlance. Therefore, while interpreting any item subjected to tax under the sales tax laws, resort should be had to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them,. e. , in the commercial sense and not to the scientific or technical meaning of such term. (2) If the intention of the Legislature was to levy a single point tax on a particular item, an interpretation which would in effect result in the levy of multipoint tax on the same commodity should not be given. (3) If two interpretations are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the assessee should be accepted. Therefore, the decision on the crucial question arising for consideration in these cases, viz. , as to whether the desiccated coconut has to be considered as coconut and nothing more or it should be treated as a separate commercial commodity and, consequently, liable to tax under the Central act also, should be arrived at by applying the aforesaid principles. "

Therefore, the foremost consideration when interpreting these entries would be to understand the meaning of the expression in the common parlance and if two interpretations are possible to adopt and interpret the same in a manner which, as far as possible, would be beneficial to the assessee.

( 3 ) THE first question to be considered, therefore, would be to understand as to what is "de-oiled rice bran cake". Mr. Kishore Mallya, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed before me the result of the analysis report made by the Central Poultry Training Institute, Bangalore, with respect to rice bran and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document