LexM/S ACHAL INDUSTRIES versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
M/S ACHAL INDUSTRIES
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2011)
MARCH 28, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 – ss.2(u-2) and 6-B(1) –
Turnover tax under s.6-B – Basis for levy – Submission for the
appellant that the ‘total turnover’ in s.6-B(1) is to be read as ‘taxable
turnover’ and the determination of the rate of the turnover tax is to
be ascertained on ‘taxable turnover’ – Held: Submission is
unsustainable – Except the deductions provided under the first
proviso to s.6-B(1) nothing else is to be deducted from the total
turnover as defined under s.2(u-2) for the purpose of levy of turnover
tax under s.6-B of the Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The expression “total turnover” and “turnover”
which has been used under Section 6-B has the same meaning as
defined under Section 2(1)(u-2) and 2(v) of the Act. Under Section
6-B, reference is made on ‘total turnover’ and not the ‘turnover’
as defined under Section 2(v) of the KST Act and taking note of
the exemption provided under first proviso clause(iii), exclusion
has been made in reference to use of sale or purchase of goods
in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. It clearly indicates
that the expression ‘total turnover’ which has been incorporated
as referred to under Section 6-B(1) is for the purpose of
identification of the dealers and for prescribing different rates/
slabs. The first proviso to Section 6-B(1) provides an exhaustive
list of deductions which are to be made in computation of such
turnover with a further stipulation as referred to in second proviso
that except for the manner provided for in Section 6-B(1), no
other deduction shall be made from the total turnover of a dealer.
[Para 9] [517-A-C]
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 511
511
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
M/s. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others v. State
of Bihar and Others (1983) 4 SCC 45 : [1983] 3 SCR
130; Commissioner of Customs(Import), Mumbai v..
Dilip Kumar and Company and Others (2018) 9
SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 1191 – relied on.
2. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the
Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. In the instant
scheme of the Act, the expression ‘total turnover’ has been
referred to for the purpose of identification/classification of dealers
for prescribing various rates/slabs of tax leviable to the dealer
and read with first and second proviso to Section 6-B(1), this
makes the intention of the legislature clear and unambiguous
that except the deductions provided under the first proviso to
Section 6-B(1) nothing else can be deducted from the total
turnover as defined under Section 2(u-2) for the purpose of levy
of turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Act. [Paras 11, 12]
[518-G; 519-G-H; 520-A-B]
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC
67 : [2017] 8 SCR 785 ; Subramanian Swamy and
Others v. Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board
and Another (2014) 8 SCC 390 : [2014] 9 SCR 283 –
held inapplicable.
Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 380 :
[2011] 4 SCR 289 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 4 SCR 289
referred to
Para 5
[2017] 8 SCR 785
held inapplicable
Para 5
[1983] 3 SCR 130
relied on
Para 6
[2018] 7 SCR 1191
relied on
Para 11
[2014] 9 SCR 283
held inapplicable
Para 15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4837
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2007 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 37 of
2006
With
Civil Appeal No.4838 of 2011.
Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Balwinder Singh Suri,
Ms. Sarima Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Devadatt Kamat, AAG, Aristotle Joseph S., Javedur Rahman,
Ms. Priya Aristotle, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, V. N. Raghupathy,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. The present appeals have been preferred against the impugned
judgment dated 17th April, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
disposing of the Sales Tax Revision Petition examining the applicability
of the turnover tax as defined under Section 6-B(1) by the Karnataka
Sales Tax Act, 1957(hereinafter being referred to as “KST Act”).
2. The brief facts of the case which may be relevant for the
present purpose are that the appellant is a manufacturer and registered
dealer of the cashew kernelExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.