9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referred to as the Act). In clarification, annexure C, what has been clarified in annexure B has been reiterated. 5.. Sri G. Sarangan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner along with Sri Nagaraja Naidu, prayed for quashing of clarification, annexure B, issued by the respondent on 3 grounds. Firstly, he submitted that clarification annexure B, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the clarification issued notifying that the insecticide mats fall under entry No. 11 of Part M of the Second Schedule is totally erroneous in law and the said clarification has been issued without considering that the mosquito mats are insecticide mats which fall under entry No. 5 of Part I of the Second Schedule. According to Sri Sarangan, the expression "insecticide" is a combination of two words, namely, "insect" and "cide" and the latter meaning to "kill" or "killer" and therefore the insecticide mats in question are not mosquito repellents as clarified by the respondent. Secondly, he submitted that the clarifications impugned is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same has been issued without hearing the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be quashed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the clarifications impugned came to be passed without hearing the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt that the clarifications impugned seriously affect the rights of the petitioner and imposes liability on the petitioner to pay higher tax. If the insecticide mats in question fall under entry No. 5 of Part I of the Second Schedule, the petitioner is liable to pay tax only at 3 per cent. On the other hand, if it falls under entry No. 11 of Part M of the Second Schedule, as clarified by the Commissioner in the circulars impugned, the petitioner is liable to pay tax at 10 per cent. Section 3-A of the Act provides that all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act shall observe and follow the directions given by the Commissioner. Therefore, when the question arises as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax treating the insecticide mats in question as the one falling under entry No. 5 of Part I of the Second Schedule or the one falling under entry No. 11 of Part M of the Second Schedule, the respondent is required to consider the said question after hearing the petitioner. However, Sri Shivayogi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emo of appearance within four weeks. Writ petition allowed. ORDER G.C. BHARUKA, J.-The short question involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption from the tax payable under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short "the Act") on the retreading materials consumed in execution of the retreading contract of worn out old tyres in terms of the Notifications No. S.O. 931 dated June 8, 1989 and No. S.O. 1371 dated June 21, 1991 (hereinafter "the exempting notifications") issued under section 8A of the Act. 2.. The petitioner-company herein is engaged in the business of retreading of tyres. It is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. Its unit has been granted a certificate by the Directorate of Industries (annexure A) certifying it to be a registered small-scale industrial unit. It is aggrieved by the issuance of proposition notices pertaining to the periods 1990-91 and 1991-92 (annexures B and C) whereunder tax has been proposed to be levied in terms of section 5B of the Act in the relation to the transactions of the petitioner. 3.. It has been stated by the petitioner that when a tyre casing is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the said Act, in respect of the goods manufactured and sold by tiny sector and S.S.I. units mentioned in column 2 of the table below, located at places, subject to the ceilings and during the period indicated in the respective column Nos. 3, 4, and 5 thereof: Table ...................." 6.. It can easily be seen from above that the language employed in the exempting notification to the extent it is relevant for present purposes, is absolutely clear and unambiguous. Going by its natural meaning, it provides for grant of exemption only in respect of goods manufactured and sold by the industrial units. As such it does not call for application of any interpretational aids, either internal or external, for the purpose of ascertaining any other purported scope and extent of these notifications. 7.. In the case of Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, New Delhi [1978] 41 STC 409 (SC) at page 421; AIR 1978 SC 897 (para 7), it has been held thus: "Now, if there is one principle of interpretation more well-settled than any other, it is that a statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to the plain natural meaning of its lang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
