9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered by the said notification dated 10-4-2000, and are not entitled for exemption. - Decided against the assessee - Civil Appeal No. 2983-2988 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2011 - Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Ardendumauli Kr. Prasad, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Kavin Gulati, Ms. Rashmi Singh and T. Mahipal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Mukundakam Sharma, J.]. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-5-2009 in TTR No. 329/2007 TTR No. 330/2007 TTR No. 331/2007 TTR No. 332/2007 TTR No. 333/2007 TTR No. 334/2007 passed by the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the Trade Tax Revision filed by the respondent and reversed the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, UP (Noida Bench). 3. The issue that falls for our consideration in the present appeals is whether scientific and biological instruments/equipments manufactured and sold by the respondent/assessee would be entitled to get exemption from payment of tax under the U.P. Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation also. 8. The explanation as submitted by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing authority and assessment orders were passed on 20-2-2004, 17-3-2005 and 30-3-2005 for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 1998-1999 respectively and the tax was levied under the U.P. Act and also under the Central Act. The Assessing Authority has accepted books of accounts of the assessee as well as declared turnover but rejected the benefits of declaration Form 3-D/D and on the Intra-State/inter-state sales made to the Central/State Government organizations and also treated the goods as unclassified goods, declining it to grant benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1166 dated 10-4-2000 holding that the assessee is not entitled to get exemption under the aforesaid notification. 9. Thereafter, appeals were filed before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and by its common order dated 31-12-2005, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both the appeals holding that the equipment manufactured and sold by the respondent are used as instruments in the research laboratories for maintaining the environment free from bacteria, and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds but treated them as taxable goods under Section 3-A(1)(C) of the U.P. Act as unclassified goods and the assessee charged full rate of tax as is evident from the various cash memos, which are on record and also claimed concessional rate of tax against the Form 3D (U.P. Act) and Form D (Central Act). 15. It was further submitted that the plain language of the notification is to be read for the purpose of understanding its language and the common parlance meaning or the popular sense meaning should be preferred over the technical or scientific meaning of the items and since the goods manufactured by the assessee are not being used for the study of biology, the same is not entitled for exemption from tax. Reliance was also placed by the counsel for the appellant on the Hindi version of the notification, which classifies it as relatable to life science (Jeev Biology) taught in schools and colleges. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, refuted the aforesaid contentions of the appellant and submitted that the equipments and instruments which are being manufactured by the assessee/respondent are mainly used for providing a safe environment for scientific exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10-4-2000 is Jeev Vigyan Sammandhi Upkaranikayen Aur Sanyantra . That means the instruments which are used for the study of Life Science (Jeev Vigyan) by students in educational institutions. The various articles in question as manufactured and sold by the respondent are not meant for teaching Life Science (Jeev Vigyan) to be taught in educational institutions. The articles in question are meant for Hospital, Medical Colleges and Research Laboratories which may fall in the category of Biological Instruments and are outside the purview of Biology Instruments to be used by the students in educational institutions. 23. Moreover, classification of any commodity cannot be made on its scientific and technical meaning. It is only the common parlance meaning of the term which should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the tax liability. In the present case the commodities that have been grouped together are articles used in Education Institutions such as Maps Chart, Sketch Map, Instrument Box, Educational Globes etc. 24. This Court in the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 786 held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e comprehensive meaning the term bears in natural history and has not been given that meaning in taxing statutes before. The term vegetables is to be understood as commonly understood denoting those classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen gardens and are used for the table. (emphasis supplied) 26. In Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise and Customs reported in AIR 1970 SC 755 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (S.C.) this Court held as follows :- It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter is different, but that is not the case here. In this connection we may refer to the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon v. Salomon Co.1 : Intention of the legislature is a common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , educational charts, scientific mathematical survey, mechanical drawing and biology instruments and apparatus, all belong to different categories of goods and they are not followed by any general words. 31. We are unable to accept the aforesaid stand of the counsel appearing for the respondents for all these goods which are mentioned in the aforesaid entry of the notification relate to articles used for study of life science in schools and colleges, such as, maps, educational charts, scientific mathematical survey, mechanical drawing and biology instruments and apparatus. All of them belong to one class as they are the tools by using which a student would and could learn life science. In the aforesaid manner the doctrine of Nositur a Sociis would be applicable to the facts of the present case. 32. At this stage reference could also be made to the earlier entry on the same subject which was used in the notification dated 20-5-1976. In the said notification the entry was in the following manner: Maps, Educational Charts, Instruments Boxes, Educational Globes and instruments, such as instruments used in Mechanical drawings and Biology used by Students. 33. The aforesaid ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
