LexINNAMURI GOPALAN AND OIHERS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1563
Ap•il 8
888 SUPREME CuURT REPOR1 S [1964] VOL.
INNA:WlURI GOPALAN AND OIHERS
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AND ANR.
(B. P. SJNHA C. J., J. C. SHAH and
N. RAJA!lOPALA AYYA~GAR JJ.)
Salts Tax-E.umption-Notification
exempting textiles
etc.-Prov·iso-l1lri!)s of goods lr viribie l 1> additional excist duty-
Andhra Prade.h General Sales Tax Ad, 1951 (A. P. 6 of 1951')
a. 9-Notiflcation dated Decembu 13, 1957-Additional Dutie.
of Excise (Levy and Distribution) Bill, 1!15'1, cl. 3.
On December 13, 1957, the State Government issued a
notification under s. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales
Tax Act, 1947, txempting from tax the sale or purchase o(
certain goods including textiles. The proviso therein provided
that "in the case of auy class uf such goods in respect of which
additional duties of excise are leviable by the Ceutral Govern-
ment under cl. 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Levy and
Distribution) Bill, 1957 .......... " the exemption shall be
subject to the condition that the deal(':r must prove that he has
paid the additional excise duty. The appellants had in stock
textiles which were admittedly not liable to tho additional
excise du•.y under cl. 3 of the Bill. The appellants claimed
exemption from sales tax under the notification in respect of
the •ale• of textiles in theiI stock. The State con tended that
since the object of the notification was
to avoid double
taJ<ation the exemption
could be claimed only
in cases
where the additional excise duty was leviable on the good• and
had been paid aud that as textiles were a class of good• on
which additional excise duty was leviable and the exemption
could be claimed only if •uch duty was levied and paid.
Held that the appellant• were entitled under the Noti-
fication to ex<:mption from >ale• tax on the sales of the textiles
in their stock. The appellants were clearly within the opera-
tive words of the notification and could be deprived of the
el<emption to which they were manifestly entitled thereunder
only if the case fell
within
the
proviso. The provi•o
wao not applicable to cases where additional excise duty was
nol leviable under cl. 3 of the Bill. The expression "clau
•
2;S.C.R .
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS
889
. of such goods" in the proviso has to be understood as a refer·
ence not merr ly to goods sprcified in the opening words of cl. 3
but to such goods as fa 11 within the entirety of the taxing pro-
vision and in respect of which additional excise duty would be
lcviablc.
Further, in a taxing statute there is no room for any
intcndment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the
.. words. If the tax prayer is within the plain terms of the
exemption he cannot be denied its bendit by calling io aid any
supposed intention of the exemption aa1hority.
Salomon v> Sak>mon & Co . .[1897) A: C. 22, referred IQ,
Ctvm APPELLATE J umsDICTlON : Civil Appeal
· No:488 of 1962 .
. Appeal· by special leave • from the judgment
and order.dated January 18, 1961, of the Andhra
·.Pradesh High Court in .Writ Petition No. 101 of
1959.
N. C. Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and A. K. Nag,
for the appellants.
· A. Ranganathan Chetty and P, D. Menon for
'"the respondents.
1963.
April 8.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYY.ANG.ARJ.-The proper construction and
legal effect of a notification under s. 9 ( 1) of the
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (A.P.
Vl of 1957) .which for shortness we would call the
., Act, is the. principal question that arises for con·
• sideration in this appeal by special leave in which
the coFrectncSS·1 of. the cdecisi-0n of the. High Court
dismissing a Writ Petition,, filed-.by,the,:l;\flpellants is
challenged.
·• Section I) of .the Act is the charging section
under which .dealers. are . liable to. pay sales tax on
their turnover ... Under. sub-s. (3) (a). of this section,
. ,1963
lnnamuri ( ,'oflalan
v.
tt11te of Andhra
Pradesh
Ayyangar J.
' .
1963
lrin"muri Gopa/an
v.
Stoll ef Andhra
Prad11h
Ayy,,.zar J.
S90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] \lot.
read with Sch. II to the Act cotton textitle goods
which was the commodity in which the appellants
were dealing, \Hrc liaUr to t;ix at a sing Ir point.
Section 9 of the Act enabled the State G0vernment
to exempt the tax leviable under the Act.
In exer-
cise of the power thus conferred a notification was
issued on December 13, 1957, which read :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
SectionExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.