2000 (2) TMI 755 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interpretation of notification which exempts from tax payable under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on sales of all books and periodicals with effect from April 1, 1964 Held that - Appeal dismissed. There not been the decision of the High Court rendered as early as 1972 which held the field for nearly three decades and no attempt was made to challenge that decision either in this Court or in the High Court. We think it would be unreasonable to upset the meaning given to the expression used in enactment which was in force for nearly three decades. In fact, the Government subsequently has taken note of this decision and has restricted the exemption only to periodicals and books for reading.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of notification exempting books from tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the interpretation of a notification exempting certain books from tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Initially, the exemption covered all books and periodicals from tax starting from April 1, 1964. However, a subsequent government order limited the exemption to only periodicals and printed books for reading, while imposing a reduced tax rate on other types of books like exercise and note books. This change led to notices being issued to dealers to reopen assessments, challenging the classification of certain items like C form books, lottery tickets, and share certificates as books eligible for exemption.

The validity of these notices was challenged in the High Court through writ petitions. The High Court, relying on a previous decision in Govindswamy Binding Works v. State of Andhra Pradesh, interpreted the term "all books" broadly to include various types of books beyond literary works or specific categories mentioned in the previous notification. The High Court held that the term "all books" encompassed all kinds of books, irrespective of their content or nature, based on common understanding and the plain language of the notification.

In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that "all books" should be construed in conjunction with "periodicals" to limit the exemption to reading material only. However, the Court noted the longstanding interpretation given by the High Court in a previous case from 1972, which had not been challenged for nearly three decades. The Court found it unreasonable to overturn an interpretation that had been in place for such a long period. Additionally, the government had subsequently amended the exemption to include only periodicals and books for reading, further supporting the broader interpretation of "all books" as encompassing various types of books.

Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the order under appeal and finding no justification to interfere. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting longstanding interpretations and the subsequent government actions in restricting the exemption to specific categories of books. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.