Interpretation of exemption notifications - The court emphasized the need for a liberal and purposive interpretation of exemption notifications to promote the intention behind the exemption and ensure equity and fairness.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) IN these Revision Petitions, we are concerned with the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95.

( 3 ) THE questions of law that would arise for consideration and decision of this Court are: ". Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Authorities under the Act are justified in giving a finding that fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, weedicides, etc. , do not fall under the category insecticides and pesticides by solely relying on the amendments made in Entry 117 of the Second Schedule to Karnataka Sales Tax Act?. Whether the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified in holding gramaxone, vitto-plant, zimag, etc. , do not fall under the category of insecticides and pesticides?. Whether the Tribunal is justified in subjecting the second and subsequent sales of gramaxone, vitto-plant, zimag, etc. , to turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales tax Act, even though notification No. F D. 32. CSL. 81 (1) dated 29. 6. 1981 has exempted second and subsequent sales of insecticides and pesticides from payment of turnover tax?"

( 4 ) TO answer the aforesaid questions, the brief facts as narrated by the petitioner in the memorandum of revision petitions require to be noticed. They are as under: the petitioner claims that he is a dealer in insecticides and pesticides, and registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "kst Act, 1957" ). For the assessment years in question, the petitioner had effected second sales of chemical compounds known as Gramoxone, Fermoxone, Vitto-plant, Zimag etc. The petitioner had claimed exemption from payment of turnover tax on the turnover of the aforesaid chemical compounds in view of the Government Notification dated 29. 6. 1981, on the assumption that those chemical compounds would fall within the meaning of the expression "insecticides and pesticides". The Assessing Authority while framing the assessment orders for the assessment years in question had rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption and had subjected the said turnover to turnover tax by holding that the aforesaid goods would fall under the category of herbicides, fungicides, weedicides and plant regulators, etc. , and therefore, do not fall under the category of "insecticides and pesticides", which are alone entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of turnover tax under the aforesaid notification.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, petitioner had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority taking the very same view, as had been done by the Assessing Authority, had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by his common order dated 25. 10. 1996.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders made by the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner had preferred separate appeals for different assessment years before the Karnataka Appellate tribunal. The Tribunal by its common order dated 6. 7. 1999 rejected the appeals and confirmed the orders made by the Authorities under the Act.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal while rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner, in its order observes that the appellant before them is not eligible for exemption from payment of turnover tax under Section 6b of the Act on its second sales as envisaged in the Notification dated 29. 6. 1981, since the second sales of the chemical compound effected by the appellant would fall under the category fungicides, herbicides, weedicides, etc. , and therefore, articles in question are not insecticides and pesticides, which alone qualify for exemption as per the notification. The other reason assigned by the Tribunal while rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner is that, till 1. 4. 1992, en