THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) LTD. AND ANR. versus ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 07-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) l.,TD. AND ANR. 
v. 
ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1994 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDD i AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: Section 2(d~"Goods"-Amended by the 
( 
Amending Ac~ 1958-Purpose and effect of. 
'.>... 
C 
Section 8(3)(b) r/w 8(1)(b)-lnter-State purchase of raw materials by 
printers/ publishers of newspapers-Rate of tax-Concessional rate of 4% as 
against 10%-Amended definition of "goods" excluding newspapers-- Benefit 
of concessional rate of tax denied to the newspapers-Validity of 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(a) and 265--Freedom of 
D press-Right to publish, to dissiminate inf onnatiort-f'ress not immune from 
taxes and general laws-However, it is placed on a higher footing than other 
enterprises-Given special treatment in the matter of tax. 
Interpretation of statute: Definition clause-Not to be applied mechani-
cally since it may lead to absurd and unintended result-Contextual mean-
E 
ing--/mportance and application of. 
F 
The definition of the expression "goods" in Section 2 of the Central 
Sales Tax Act, 1956 came to be amended in 1958, resulting in exclusion of 
newspapers from the purview of "goods". According to the Revenue, this 
amendment had the effect of disentitling the printers/publishers of 
newspapers to the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the raw material 
purchased by them under Section 8(3) (b) r/w Section 8(1) (b) of the Central 
Sales Tax Act and that they liable to pay tax at the rate of 10%. The 
printers/publishers of newspapers approached the respective High Courts 
questioning the demands raised on the above basis. The Madras and 
G Kerala High Courts held that the newspapers were entitled to the benefit, 
while the Karnataka High Court took a contrary view. 
Against the judgments of the said High Courts, the present appeals 
were filed. 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
682 
) 
PRINTERS (MYSORE) LID. v. ASS TI. COMM. TAX OFFICER 
683 
HELD: 1. The expression "goods" occurring in the words "for use by A 
him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" in Section 8(3)(b) 
of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 does take in, i.e., does not exclude 
newspeper. (695-H, 696-A] 
Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, 
(1972) 29 S.T.C. 88; Madras High Court & Malaya/a Manorama Co. & Ors. 
v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) I Sales tax Special Circle Kottayam 
& Ors. O.P. No. 143 of 1989 disposed of on August 18, 1990 by the Kerala 
High Court, affirmed. 
B 
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. & Anr. v. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer VII C 
Circle, Bangalore & Ors., 59 S.T.C. 306, overruled. 
2. The special treatment given to newspapers has a philosophical and 
historical background. Freedom of press has always been a cherished right 
in all democratic countries. The newspapers not only purvey news but also 
< 
ideas, opinions and ideologies besides much else. They are supposed to D 
guard public interest by bringing to fore the misdeeds, failings and lapses 
of the government and other bodies exercising governing power. Rightly, 
therefore, it has been described as the Fourth Estate. The democratic 
credentials of a State is judged today by the extent of freedom the press 
.enjoys in that State. Any imposition or restriction directly relatable to the E 
right to publish, to the right to disseminate information and to circulation 
of newspapers is, therefore, prohibited, though the press is not immune 
from taxes and general laws, of the land. [691-C-G] 
Express Newspapers v. Union of India, A.I.R. (1958) S.C. 578; Ramesh 
Thapar v. State of Madras, AI.R. (1950) S.C. 124; Sakal Papers v. Union of F 
India, [1962) 3 S.C.R. 842; Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, [1972) 
2 S.C.C. 788 and Indian Express v. Union of India, [1985] 1 S.C.C. 641, 
relied on. 
Tenniniello v. Chicago, (1949) 93 L.Edn. 1131 and De Jonde v. State G 
of Oregon, [1937) 299 U.S. 353, referred to. 
3.1. Entry 54 of List-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution, 
which empowers the State legislatures to levy tax on the sale of goods 
expressly excludes newspapers. The result is, that the State legislatures are 
not competent to levy tax on the sale or purchase of newspapers. Entry 92 H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
of List-I empowered the Parliament to levy taxes on the sale or purchase 
of newspapers and on advertisements published therein but the Parlia· 
ment has not chosen to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.