2016 (4) TMI 716 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Entitlement of benefit under Section 17(4)(ii) of The Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Petitioner firm consists of two women partners - appellant contended that merely because the words used under Section 17(4)(i) are that of a dealer being a woman , it cannot be restricted to mean a single woman only - Held that - it is found that if purposive interpretation is made to the word a dealer being a woman , it should mean that a dealer being a woman would also include women . Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. However, on the other aspects of submitting reply and the consideration thereof by the appropriate authority, it is found that no interference may be made save and except that while giving effect to the provisions of Section 17(1)(4) (ii) of the Act, the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall consider the matter in light of the observations made by us in the present judgment and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law. - Decided pertly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 17(4)(ii) of The Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 regarding entitlement of a partnership firm consisting of two women partners to benefits.

In this judgment, the primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 17(4)(ii) of The Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, specifically concerning whether a partnership firm consisting of two women partners would be entitled to the benefit under this provision. The appellant's counsel argued that the term "a dealer being a woman" should not be restricted to mean a single woman only, citing the inclusive definition of "Dealer" under Section 2(1)(k) of the Act, which includes partnership firms. The respondent's counsel, however, emphasized the express language used in the provision and the subsequent amendment extending the benefit to all women.

The court delved into the definition of "Dealer" under Section 2(1)(k) of the Act, highlighting its inclusive nature encompassing various entities, including partnership firms. The court noted that restricting the interpretation to "a dealer being a woman" would contradict the legislative intent behind the broader definition of "dealer." Additionally, reference was made to the General Clauses Act, particularly Section 13 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, which clarifies that words in the singular may include the plural, supporting a wider interpretation of "woman" to include "women."

Ultimately, the court concluded that a purposive interpretation should be applied to the term "a dealer being a woman," extending its scope to include multiple women partners in a partnership firm. The judgment set aside the previous ruling by the Single Judge and directed the Assessing Officer or appellate authority to consider the matter in light of the court's observations and make decisions in accordance with the law. The appeal was partly allowed on this basis, with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive interpretation of statutory provisions in line with legislative intent and legal principles.