Back
1977 Supreme(Ori) 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
P.K. Mohanty, S.K. Ray, JJ.
SHANTILAL KALIDAS
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA
S.J.C. Nos. 186 and 187 of 1975
Decided On: Decided On : 28-03-1977
B. P. Chandgotia, for the applicant.
A. K. Roy, the Standing Counsel, Sales Tax, for the opponent.
The term "glassware" in Entry No. 38 of the taxable goods framed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act should be given its widest meaning and includes all articles made of glass, including glass bangles.
Headnote:
ORISSA SALES TAX ACT - SECTION 5(1) - ENTRY NO. 38 - GLASS BANGELS - WHETHER COVERED BY ENTRY NO. 38 OR UNCLASSIFIED GOODS - HELD, COVERED BY ENTRY NO. 38.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a registered dealer in glass bangles, challenged the imposition of sales tax at the rate of 7% on the sale of glass bangles for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee contended that glass bangles should be taxed at the general rate of 5% as unclassified goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that glass bangles are covered by Entry No. 38 of the taxable goods framed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and cannot be treated as unclassified goods.
Issues: Whether glass bangles are covered by Entry No. 38 of the taxable goods framed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act or they will be treated as unclassified goods?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Entry No. 38, which includes "glassware and china-clay goods excepting bottles, lamps and lantern chimneys and earthenware pottery," and held that the term "glassware" should be given its widest meaning and includes all articles made of glass. The court rejected the assessee's argument that glass bangles are not commonly considered as glassware and that they should be excluded from Entry No. 38.
Final Decision: The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that glass bangles are covered by Entry No. 38 of the taxable goods framed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
JUDGMENT
S. K. Ray, J. - Both these cases have been taken up together as they involve an identical question, but relate to different assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.
2. On an application being made under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the assessee for a reference to this court, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has referred the following question for opinion of the court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, glass bangles (glass chudies) would be covered by entry No. 38 of the taxable list of goods other than luxury goods framed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act or they will be treated as unclassified goods ?"
3. The assessee-petitioner is a registered dealer and carries on business in glass bangles at Sambalpur town. His gross turnover of sales for the yeas 1968-69 and 1969-70 is not in controversy. Tax, however, was imposed on the sale of glass bangles for these two years at the rate of 7 per cent as specified goods under entry No. 38 against his claim that the sales should be taxed at the rate of 5 per cent as unclassified goods. Accordingly, there was an excess demand of tax of Rs. 1,839.47 and Rs. 2,053.05 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 respectively by the Sales Tax Officer. The assessee was unsuccessful in his first and second appeals and hence he applied to the Tribunal for a reference on the question aforesaid.
4. During the relevant assessment years the general rate of tax payable by a dealer under section 5(1) of the Act was 5 per cent. This sub-section contains a number of provisos, but the first two provisos authorise the State Government to vary the general rate of tax by notification. The first proviso empowers the State Government from time to time by notification, subject to such conditions as they may impose, to fix a higher rate of tax not exceeding 10 per cent or any lower rate of tax payable under the Act on account of sale or purchase of any goods or class of goods as specified in such notification. Pursuant to the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, the State Government issued Notification No. 33927-F, dated 30th December, 1957. Under item No. 38 of this notification glassware and china-clay goods excepting bottles, lamps and lantern chimneys and earthenware pottery were made subject to a rate of tax at 7 per cent. Those goods which are not specified under any notification issued under the provisos to section 5(1) of the Act are liable to general rate of tax under section 5(1) as unclassified goods. The controversy, therefore, is as to whether glass bangle is a specified article covered under item 38 and thus liable to higher rate of tax at 7 per cent or is an unclassified article liable to general rate of tax of 5 per cent, as claimed by the assessee.
5. The first principal of construction is that if the provision of a statute is found to be unambiguous it must be construed literally. In construing a fiscal statute and in determining the liability of a subject to tax, one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the law. If a case is not covered within the four corners of the provision of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. In case of a reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be entertained. Even so, as already indicated above, the fundamental rule of construction is the same for all statutes whether fiscal or otherwise, namely, that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein, rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is expedient.
6. In the aforesaid context item No. 38 is to be construed. It reads as follows :
"Glassware and china-clay goods e
