9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x machines as duplicating machines, falling under entry 12 of the First Schedule and subjected to higher rate of tax. Aggrieved by the same, the dealer carried the matter in appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the dealer as well as the department affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT). Therefore, the present tax revision case by the dealer. 3.. The learned counsel for the dealer contended that the Xerox machines, with which the petitioner was dealing, cannot be considered as duplicating machines as they are not simple duplicators, but is equipped with the capacity to enlarge as well as contract the size of the documents that are required to be copied. According to the learned counsel, the Xerox machine is being operated with electricity and therefore it should be treated as one falling under entry 83 as part of all kinds of machinery propelled or operated by electricity, diesel, etc. The learned counsel also contended that the term duplicating machine was there under entry 12 from the beginning of the Act, though the Xerox machines were not available at that time when the said entry was introduced. Though the X ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as some subsequent advancement of technology so as to get enlarged as well as contracted copies of the originals while taking copies, the dealer has advanced an argument that such a provision is not there in the duplicating machine. The learned counsel also contended that even assuming that the Xerox machines could be considered as falling under both the entries, even then entry 83 is a general entry; whereas entry 12 is of specific entry, dealing with a special type of items. Under such circumstances a special entry prevails over the general entry and therefore the Xerox machines are to be treated as falling under entry 12, instead of entry 83 of the First Schedule. The learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention Good Year India Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 249 (AP); (1994) 19 APSTJ 247, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Serval Industries (1996) 23 APSTJ 63. The learned counsel also contended that there is no ambiguity with reference to the item in question whether it would fall under entry 12 or entry 83. When there is no ambiguity, there is no scope for giving any benefit of levying lower tax by treating it as one falling under e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of the learned counsel with reference to the objections filed by the dealer before the Deputy Commissioner that in Xerox machines photo cameras take the photo and prints the photo on paper; whereas in duplicating machines there is no such process of printing. Therefore, the Xerox machine has to be considered as machine operated electrically. The learned counsel also referred to and relied upon the meaning of term Xerox, Xerography, photo copier and duplicating as given in the Webster Dictionary, which are as follows: "'Xerography'-Dry printing process in which a black mineral powder is deposited on, and adheres permanently to, those parts of a paper surface which are rendered sensitive by a photoelectric beam, Xerox adj. Xerox n. the copy-Xerox v. to copy by xerography-Xerox trade mark of the copiers of the Xerox Corporation. Photocopier-photocopies n. a photographic reproduction of a document, illustration, etc. 2. v.t. pres. part. photocopying past and past part. Photocopied to make a photocopy of. Duplicate-1 v.t. pres. part. duplicating past and past part. Duplicated to do or cause to be done twice over; to make in duplicate; to be a copy of; to make severa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple may be applied along with some use of chemistry, and products of such a machine would be products of a duplicating machine. Where, on the basis of principles of photography and surface electrification an instrument is devised to obtain copies, such a machine or instrument would also be a duplicating machine because the essential function of the machine is to make copies. It does not create any original material. The product is known not by the application of the basic principle by which it is manufactured. It is known by its function. Simply because one additional function of the Xerox machine is to contract or enlarge the original writing, it cannot be said that a Xerox machine is a photographic or other type of camera. Therefore, Xerox machines or photocopiers are taxable as duplicating machines under entry 79 of Part A of Schedule II to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and not under the other entry. The said decision clearly shows that the court proceeded on the purpose for which the machine is being used and not the method or the way it was being used for the purpose of obtaining copies. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Xerox machine has to be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of doubt should be given to the dealer so as to reduce the liability. 11.. The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, referred to the entries and contended that entry 83 is a general entry regarding to all machineries other than those specifically mentioned elsewhere (emphasis supplied). Entry 12 is a specific and special entry, where duplicate machines are specifically mentioned. According to the learned counsel if an item falls under both the general entry as well as special entry, then the special entry prevails over the general entry and the item has to be treated as falling under the special entry and not under the general entry. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Goodyear India Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 249; (1994) 19 APSTJ 247. In that case the court was considering the issue "whether the 'transmission beltings' are cotton fabrics or not?". The court while deciding the issue held Here italicised. that "it is settled law [vide State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai [1979] 44 STC 137 (SC); (1979) 3 SCC 347] that when there is a conflict between special pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver." If we give the natural, ordinary and popular meaning as to the term "Xerox machine" and the purpose for which it is being used, the said item unmistakably falls under entry 12 as a duplicating machine and not under the term "machinery" mentioned in the entry 83 of the First Schedule. 15.. As observed earlier, we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the Xerox machine is nothing but a duplicating machine, where it is being used for obtaining copies of the original. There is no ambiguity and the Xerox machine would be considered as a duplicating machine only, falling under entry 12 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
