1962 Supreme(Kar) 11

Karnataka High Court
Judges : K.S.Hegde,Iqbal Husain
STATE OF MYSORE - Appellant
Versus
SANTOOMAL KISHNOMAL - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition 1267 Of 1960
Decided On : 01/23/1962
Advocates Appeared :
D.R.CHANDRASEKHAR, GULUR SRINIVASA RAO

The ordinary meaning of the words 'agricultural implement' should be considered, and if an item is extensively used for agricultural purposes, it qualifies as an agricultural implement exempted from sales tax.

Headnote:

agricultural implement - Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948 - The court held that a 'crow-bar' is considered an 'agricultural implement' and is exempted from sales tax under schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The court emphasized that the ordinary meaning of the words 'agricultural implement' should be considered, and since the crow-bar is extensively used for agricultural purposes, it qualifies as an agricultural implement.

Fact of the Case:

The only point for consideration was whether a 'crow-bar' is an 'agricultural implement' exempted from sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal opined that it is an agricultural implement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the crow-bar is extensively used as an agricultural implement and therefore qualifies as an 'agricultural implement' exempted from sales tax.

Issues: The main issue was whether a 'crow-bar' should be considered an 'agricultural implement' for the purpose of exemption from sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the ordinary meaning of the words 'agricultural implement' should be considered, and since the crow-bar is extensively used for agricultural purposes, it qualifies as an agricultural implement.

Final Decision: The revision petition failed, and the court dismissed the petition, ordering the petitioner to pay the costs of the respondent and advocate's fee.