LexM/S. BRINDAVAN BANGLE STORES AND ORS. versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. BRINDA VAN BANGLE STORES AND ORS. v. THE ASSISTA.."ff COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ANR. JANUARY 7, 2000 [S.P. Kl:RDUKAR, V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.) Kamataka Tox on Entry of Goods Act, 1979-Notification dated 30th April 1979-Entry 30 and Entry 54--Glass Bangles and plastic bangleJ-He/d : Covered and subject to Entry Tox at 2%. A B c The appellants are dealers in glass bangles. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, on 21st July 1992, in exercise of his powers under Section 12(7) of the Knmatalw Tax 1111 Entry of Goods Act, 1979 clarified D at tile icstance 11( 11ne of the bangle merchants tbat glass bani:les and plastic bangles would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the Notification dated 30th April 1992 and would be subject to tax at 2%. Consequent up1111 the said clarilicution the Assistant Commissiocer of Commercial Taxes made an assessment order for 1992-93 and demanded entry tax 1111 bangles from the appi:llant assessees. The assessees, aimr!eved by the assessment orders, preferred writ y.:titiens llnd Single Jucf3e of the Hiflh Court allo;;ed the same and quashed the assessment orders. On appeal, Division Be,1cb allow~d the app;:uls and held that glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered. by Entry 30 and Entry 54 res~ctively, of the notification dated 311th April 1992 and subject to entry tax at 2%. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the assessees' app<'..als, this Court E F HELD : 1. A ban! reading of E:itry 30 under the I\arnatalw Tax on G Entry of Goods Act, 1979 would make it clear that the articles mmtio:ied therein are subject to payment of entry tax. The word 'and' used in Entry 30 wmdd unmMaltably indicate thut the glass ~hects (raw materials) as \~ell as articles made of glass lrmlld be subject to entry tax. The same analogy has to be extended to Entry 54. [101-D] H 97 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R. A 2. On readi1l3 Entry 30 and Entry 54 there is no manner of doubt thnt there is neither any ambiguity nor they lack any clarity. The legisla· ture intended to levy and collect entry tnx on the articles mentioned in both these entries. The words used in Entry 30 "all articles made of glass• and In Entry 54 "articles made from all kinds of and all forms of plastic B Including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene and the like materials" would make it quite clear that the entry tax is leviable on such articles. Glass bangles and plastic bangles would be clearly covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the said Notification and are subject to entry tax at 2%. (102-B, HJ C 3. The impusnedjudgment has very succinctly dealt with the conten· tions raised on behalf of both the parties nod also dealt with the various reported decisions in great length. It does not suffer from any defect or lllegullty and hence confirmed. (102-C, 103-B] Atul Glass Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, f1986J 3 SCC D 480; M/s. Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 2 SCALE 380 and Pardeep Aggarbatt~ Ludhiana v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1997) 8 sec 511, ~ferred and distinguished. 4. The Division Bench has rightly held that rule of.construction "noscuntur a sociis" has no application to the facts and circumstances of E the instant case, where the object of the legislature in using wider words is clear and free fr11m ambiguity. This rule cannot be pressed into service. [lOl·E, HJ F G The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR (1960) SC 610, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1078- 1086 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.98 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos. 4090-98 of 1995. S.K. Dholakia, E.C. Vidya Sagar, B.K. Choudhary and Rohit Kr. Singh for the Appellants. Mohan V. Katarki, Ajay K. Dutta, N. Ganpathy for the Respondents. H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BRINDAV AN BANGLE OTORl!S '· ASSIT. COMMR. OF COMMl!RCIAL TAXES (S.P. KURD UK.AR. J.; 99 S.P. IWRDI.:ICAR, J. These appeals by Special Leave are filed by the A dealers in glass and plastic bangles. The question which has been raised in these appeals is as regards the validity of imposition of entry tax on glass and plastic bangles under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The State Government on 30th April, 1992 notified various com- B modities for purpose of levy of entry tax. Entry 30 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.