9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to pay tax at the rate of 8 per cent and he is liable to pay only at the rate of 4 per cent as per the notification issued by the Government dated March 27, 1991. The assessing authority came to the conclusion that the notification dated March 27, 1991 applies only to the two wheelers which are sold from the canteen stores and not to the two wheelers sold in the open market. Assailing the said order the present petition is filed. 3.. The learned Government Advocate contended that the notification issued by the Government deleted the specified goods mentioned in the notification under entry 34 of the Fifth Schedule making them liable for the tax and that tax is fixed at 4 per cent in the same notification. Therefore 4 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of entry 34 of the Fifth Schedule and further in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8A of the Act, the Government reduced the tax payable on the sale of the specified goods to four per cent with effect from the first day of April, 1991. 6.. Entry 34 of the Fifth Schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act deals with the goods sold through canteen stores. Neither in the Fifth Schedule nor under any provision of the Act nor under Rules, is there any enumeration of the list of goods to be sold under the canteen stores. Thus, whenever the goods sold through canteen stores are exempted from payment of tax by virtue of section 8, it provides for exemption of the goods enumerated in Fifth Schedule. Section 8A of the Act emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the courts cannot interpret the statute according to the language interpreted in the statute and the notification and they are not required to draw inferences from the statute which are not provided under the statute. 8.. Learned Government Advocate contended that notification was issued in respect of the goods sold through canteen stores. Therefore the entire notification has to be interpreted only with regard to the goods sold through canteen stores and not with regard to the goods sold in the open market. We are not able to agree with the said contention. 9. It is to be noticed that the Government issued another notification dated March 30, 1992 by way of amendment making it clear that the goods sold through canteen store ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... robably because the Act omitted to make such provision, enabling the State to do so, and the exemption must, therefore, operate for the whole year, during which it was granted. The principle laid out in the above judgment of the apex Court makes it clear that the notification is deemed to come into force from the date on which it was directed to come into force. Therefore in the present case, the notification issued on March 30, 1992 comes into effect from April 1, 1992 and not earlier. Even looking from other angles, if the first notification were to state that the specified goods deleted from entry 34 of the Fifth Schedule is liable for only 4 per cent tax there was no necessity for issuing the second notification. The issuing of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
