LexM/S EUREKA FORBES LIMITED versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 540 , - ...... A M/S EUREKA FORBES LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS (Civil Appeal No. 5996 of 2011) JULY 27, 2011 :. B , [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Sales Tax - Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with Bihar c Sales Tax Rules, 1983 - Assessment proceedings under - Assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 - Assessee-appellant was levied tax on its product - vacuum cleaner, at the rate of 12% treating it as electrical goods as against the contention of the appellant that vacuum cleaner ~ < D is taxable at the rate of 8% - Whether vacuum cleaner is an A electrical good or instrument and, therefore, it falls within Entry 81 of the Notification dated 26-12-1977 issued by the respondents under Section 12 of the Bihar Finance Act- Bihar Sa/es Tax Act, 1959 and thus taxable at the rate of 12% - E Held: Entry 81 of the said Notification provides that electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances would have to be levied 12% tax effective from 1-4-1982 - However, when it states of electrical goods, the same appears to be an inclusive description - Vacuum cleaner is a machinery run ~ ·- F by electricity and therefore, is an electrical good - It is not excluded from the purview and ambit of Entry 81 in any manner as is apparent from a bare reading of the contents of Entry 81 - Plea of appellant that since vacuum cleaner is not specifically included within the Entry 81, therefore, it G should be deemed to be excluded cannot be accepted in view of the fact that none of the electrical goods, instruments, ' '-.'- apparatus, which is included in the said Entry is specifically mentioned and if that interpretation is accepted, all electrical goods would have to be excluded because they are not specifically mentioned therein - That could not be the H 540 EUREKA FORBES LIMITED v. STATE OF BIHAR 541 AND ORS. 7'~. intention of the framers of the Notification while exercising the A powers under the subordinate legislation - If such an interpretation is accepted, entire Entry 81 would be rendered otiose. ' -.I, The Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce & Industry and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Andhra B Pradesh and Ors. Etc. Etc., (2000) 6 SCC 550: 2000 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 151; Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2000 (119) STC 460 (Pat.) and Indian National Shipowners' Association v. Union of India (UO/) through c Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Ors., 2009 (14) STR 289 (Born.) - distinguished. > .. Case Law Reference: _,!._ 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 151 distinguished Para 15 D 2000 (119) STC 460 (Pat.) distinguished Para 15 2009 (14) STR 289 (Born.) distinguished Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 5996 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2010 of the High J.;., Court of Judicature at patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. ... 1351 of 2008. F S.B. Sanyal, Alok Kumar for the Appellant. Gopal Singh, Rudreshwar Singh for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ...,, J ORDER G 1. Leave granted. 2. The present case relates to assessment of the Appellant herein concerning assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992- 93 and 1993-94. H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. - -'<- A 3. The assessment proceedings were initiated under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. Notices under Section 17 (2)(a) of the Act were issued to the assessee for examination of books of accounts. The said books of accounts were produced and assessment orders .. B under Section 17 (2)(b) of the Act were passed. In the said • assessment order, the assessee was levied tax on vacuum cleaner at the rate of 12% treating it as electrical goods as against the contention of the Appellant that vacuum cleaner, which is an article dealt with by the Appellant, is taxable at the c rate of 8%. 4. The Assessing Officer by the assessment order rejected the aforesaid contention of the assessee while holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax on vacuum cleaner at the rate of 12%. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid findings and ~ < D assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the Appellant filed appeals which were entertained and disposed of dismissing the said appeals. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed in E appeals, the assessee preferred Revision Applications b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.