SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(Kar) 11

K.S.HEGDE, IQBAL HUSAIN
STATE OF MYSORE – Appellant
Versus
SANTOOMAL KISHNOMAL – Respondent


( 1 ) THE only point that comes up for consideration in this case is whether a "crow-bar" is an "agricultural implement" exempted from sales tax under schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax act, 1948. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has opined that it is an agricultural implement. There is no denying of the fact that the crow-bar is used as an agricultural implement. But, what the learned Government Pleader contends is that it is mainly used as an instrument for purposes other than agricultural purposes and therefore it should not be considered as an "agricultural implement". "agricultural implement" has not been defined in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, nor in the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, we have to take ordinary meaning of the words "agricultural implement" into consideration. It is not denied that a "crow-bar" is generally used as an agricultural implement. The question whether it is predominantly used as such an instrument to our mind appears to be an irrelevant question. The use of the "crow-bar" for agricultural purposes is by no means a remote use. We are also in agreement with the contention of Mr. Gulur Srinivasarao, the learned counsel for the respondent, that


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top