2014 (7) TMI 235 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Taxability of Vaccum Cleaner @ 12% treating it as electrical goods - entry 81 of the notification - appellant has submitted that since vacuum cleaner is not specifically included within the entry 81, therefore, it should be deemed to be excluded - Held that - none of electrical goods, instruments, apparatus, which is included in the said entry is specifically mentioned and if that interpretation is accepted, all electrical goods would have to be excluded because they are not specifically mentioned therein. That could not be the intention of the framers of the notification while exercising the powers under the subordinate legislation. If we also accept such an interpretation, in our opinion, entire entry 81 would be rendered otiose - decisions given by the High Court as also by all other authorities are correct decisions, recording cogent reasons, and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of appellant for multiple years under Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. Disagreement on tax rate for vacuum cleaner. Appeals dismissed, leading to revision applications and subsequent legal proceedings culminating in Supreme Court appeal.

Analysis:
The case involves the assessment of the appellant for various years under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, and Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. The dispute primarily revolves around the tax rate applicable to a vacuum cleaner. Initially, the assessing officer levied a 12% tax rate on the vacuum cleaner, considering it as electrical goods, contrary to the appellant's contention of an 8% tax rate. The appellant filed appeals against this decision, which were dismissed, leading to further revision applications before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the 12% tax rate classification for the vacuum cleaner as electrical goods under entry 81 of a notification issued in 1977.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether a vacuum cleaner falls within the ambit of entry 81 of the 1977 notification. Entry 81 encompasses electrical goods, instruments, apparatus, and appliances, specifying a 12% tax rate. The appellant argued that since the vacuum cleaner was not explicitly mentioned in entry 81, it should be taxed at 8%. The appellant also referred to a subsequent notification from 2000 specifically listing the vacuum cleaner at a 12% tax rate, implying that its absence in the earlier notification should result in a lower tax rate. However, the Court analyzed the language of entry 81, emphasizing that it includes an inclusive description of electrical goods and instruments, with specific exclusions like electric motors and dry cell batteries.

The Court highlighted that the vacuum cleaner in question operates using electricity, making it a type of electrical goods, which is not disputed by either party. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that since the vacuum cleaner was not explicitly mentioned in entry 81, it should be excluded from the higher tax rate. The Court reasoned that such an interpretation would render the entire entry 81 meaningless and contrary to the legislative intent behind the notification. Additionally, the Court referenced legal principles emphasizing strict construction of taxing statutes and found that previous court decisions cited by the appellant were not applicable to the current case.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, concluding that the vacuum cleaner should be taxed at 12% under entry 81 of the 1977 notification. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.