9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quot;cat feed" sold under the brand name "whiskas". The animal feed sold by the appellant are purchased from the registered dealers situated within the State of Karnataka and it would be second sale in the State of Karnataka. The goods sold by the appellant are exclusively used as daily food to cats and dogs. The appellant did not collect any tax under the provisions of the Act, on the sales of "dog feed" and "cat feed" effected by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the said goods fell under entry No. 8 of the First Schedule appended to the Act, for the periods commencing from April 1, 2005 and up to June 6, 2005 and under entry No. 5 of the First Schedule appended to the Act on and with e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra, Smt Sujatha, learned Government Advocate, supports the order and in addition she would say that the dog feed and cat feed cannot come within the entry 8. She equally relies on a few judgments. After hearing, we have seen the entries in the case on hand. Entry No. 8 to the First Schedule appended to the Act, which was operative for the periods from April 1, 2005 to June 6, 2005 would read as under: "8. Animal feed and feed supplements, namely, processed commodity sold as poultry feed, cattle feed, pig feed, fish feed, fish meal, prawn feed, shrimp feed and food supplements and mineral mixture concentrates, intended for use as feed supplements." Entry 5 of the First Schedule as substituted by Karnataka Act No. 27 of 2005 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;at least'. A perusal of the notification shows that the intention was to divide all the agricultural implements into two divisions, viz., (i) the implements driven by human or animal power and (ii) mechanised implements or those driven otherwise than by human and animal power. It does not appear to have been the intention to exempt only some of the agricultural implements driven by human and animal power and to leave out others. The idea seems to have been to exempt all agricultural implements driven by human or animal power and to tax only those agricultural implements which are worked otherwise than by human or animal power." The Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Kasiraja Nadar [1981] 47 STC 337, considered interp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;. Similarly, in all other clauses as well, the words 'and the like' have been added at the end of entries. The words 'and the like' will have to go with the description of the items in the clause and would not include an item which is not conceived in the entry. In clause (v), the intention is to subject to tax the packing materials made out of jute only and not out of any other material like cloth, polythene, etc. Jute is the basic fibre and the packing materials made out of jute only are subjected to tax. The expression 'and the like' would require to be considered 'ejusdem generis'. The genesis or the class of items envisaged by the preceding words not being exhaustive of the genesis or the class, the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of power which is not available to the court in the matter of taxing statute, for the purpose of levy of tax. Recently, a division Bench of this court in Balaji Computers v. State of Karnataka [2006] 147 STC 269, has referred to various judgments of the apex court as well as other High Courts and this court ultimately ruled that the language employed in exemption notifications and items in respect of which exemption has been given has to be understood in the context in which the exemption notifications came to be issued. This court after noticing the earlier judgment has chosen to say that the understanding of law at the earliest point of time of its enactment cannot be ignored. What applies to the statute, in my view, must be applied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ystems and musical systems commercially known as stereo or hi-fi systems. After noticing the entry, the apex court ruled that undeniably the system of the appellants is commercially known as a "stereo or hi-fi system". The use of the word "namely" in the tariff item does not mean that only the items specified thereafter fall under the definition of the term "musical system". The term "namely" only clarifies that even those items would constitute a musical system. The finding of the Supreme Court with regard to clarification has to be understood in the context of tariff item 33F with regard to a musical system commercially known as stereo. That judgment would not be on any assistance to the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
