Judges : V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI,BALAKRISHNA MENON
DY.COMMR.OF SALES TAX - Appellant
Versus
HAJI - Respondent
Case No : T.R.C. No. 179 of 1979
Decided On : 09/18/1980
Advocates Appeared :
Government Pleader; For Petitioner P. A. Mohammed; For Respondent
Turpentine - Scope of Entry 27 in Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Turpentine does not fall within the scope of entry 27 which includes 'Paints, colours, lacquers and varnishes'. Interpretation of the entry based on language used by the Legislature and a previous Division Bench decision. Government notification cannot modify enacted provisions of the statute.
Fact of the Case:
The State challenges the decision of the Salestax Appellate Tribunal, which held that turpentine does not fall within the scope of entry 27 in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and hence the turnover of the assessee relating to the sale of turpentine is taxable at the general rate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that turpentine does not fall within the scope of entry 27 and is taxable at the general rate. The court dismissed the revision with no order as to costs.
Issues: Interpretation of entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Act, and the effect of a government notification on the scope of the entry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the language used by the Legislature to determine the scope of entry 27 and relied on a previous Division Bench decision for guidance. The court also held that a government notification cannot modify the enacted provisions of the statute.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
1. The State is the revision petitioner before us and the challenge is directed against the correctness of the decision rendered by the Salestax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in Tribunal Appeal No. 503/ 77 holding that turpentine does not fall within the scope of entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - for short the Act - and hence the turnover of the assessee relating to the sale of turpentine is taxable at the general rate.
2. Entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Act reads: "Paints, colours, lacquers and varnishes."
We are totally unable to see how turpentine can be said to fall within any of the aforesaid categories described in this entry. Turpentine is, no doubt, used as a solvent thinner or dissolvent in paints and varnishes but it cannot by itself be applied to other substances for the purpose of imparting colour or shine.
3. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Colour Chem. Ltd. ()XII STC. 90) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had occasion to consider the scope of an identical entry contained in Schedule C in Entry 39 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act-Act 51 of 1959. And it was held that:
"the term "paints" occurring in entry 39 should be construed ejusdem generis with the words 'lacquers and varnishes" occurring in the said entry. So construed, entry 39 is intended to apply to liquid substances, which are capable of being used by themselves for applying to other substances for the purpose of imparting colour or shine as the case may be."
We are in respectful agreement with the said interpretation placed by the Bombay High Court on the identical entry contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
4. Counsel for the Revenue strongly urged before us that by virtue of the notification issued by the Government as per G.O. MS. No. 634/62/ Rev. dated 23-7-1962 under S.25 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (corresponding to S.60 of the present Act) Government have ordered that turpentine shall be deemed to come under the scope of entry No. 47 of Schedule I of the General Sales Tax Act 1125, which was in terms identical with the present entry No. 27 of the Act. It is now well settled that in the guise of exercising the power conferred by the statute for removal of difficulties in the working of the provisions of the enactment, the Government cannot add to or modify the enacted provisions of the Statute. The ambit of the words used in entry 27 of the First Schedule to the Act has to be gathered from the language used therein by the Legislature. There is no difficulty in the matter of interpretation of the concerned entry since, the language employed by the Legislature is quite plain and unambiguous Even incases where there is any difficulty in the matter of interpretation of an entry, such difficulty will have to be resolved by the court and any notification issued by the State Government concerning the matter will not bind the Tribunal or the Court in the matter of determining the true meaning and scope of the entry contained in the Schedule to the Statute.
5. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that turpentine will not tall within the scope of entry 27 of the First Schedule to the Act, and the turnover relating to the said article is taxable only at the general rate. The revision is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.