Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1258 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTEligibility - Chemical fertilizer mixture - Grant of exemption from the levy of turnover tax under Section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Notifications dated March 31, 1997, March 1, 1998, March 31, 1999 - Tribunal passed the order without considering the judgment of this Court as not a binding precedent in the case of Pali Chemical Industries, Nippani, Belgaum v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore [2004 (11) TMI 545 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Held that:- discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. Therefore, the Tribunal should have kept in mind that the doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs, and, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court. Entry 11 defines what a chemical fertilizer is and what a chemical fertilizer mixture is. Both are distinct entries and so understood, as such exemption was granted only to chemical fertilizer. This benefit was not extended to chemical fertilizer mixture. Therefore, when the Legislature made a distinction between chemical fertilizer and chemical fertilizer mixture from the inception, a notification exempting from payment of turnover tax on chemical fertilizer cannot be extended to chemical fertilizer mixture. If that is done by the interpretation process, the court would be adding to the notification which the Legislature and the Government did not intend to. The courts have no power to legislate, to add or to remove from the notification issued by the Government. When the Government notification specifically refers to the chemical fertilizer, there is no scope for interpretation also. In that view of the matter, we do not see any substance in the said contention. In fact, in the Pali Chemical Industries case (supra), the Division Bench, as stated earlier, has extracted the entries, examined the entire scheme of entry 11, followed the judgment of the apex court, looked into the very same notification and has placed interpretation, which, in our opinion, is also proper and correct. We do not see any justification to differ from the said interpretation and the judgment in Pali Chemical Industries' case (supra) equally binds this court. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. - Revision Petitions are allowed
|