2021 (11) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st be read according to natural construction of its words. It is evident that there is no mention of rubber processing oil in the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and therefore, the same cannot be subjected to entry tax - No reasons have been assigned for issuance of clarification dated 05.12.2012. Appeal dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI AGA, ADV.,) RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.N. KESHVAMURTHY, ADVCOATE FOR RESPONDENT) JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to reconsider the matter and to proceed in accordance with law. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that rubber processing oil should be treated as a petroleum product and the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in case of 'CARL BECHEM LUBRICANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS', 2013 (76) KAR. LJ 374 (HC) (DB). Learned Additional Government Advocate has also relied on decision of division bench of this court in 'HYVA INDIA (PRIVATE) LTD., BANGALORE', 2012 (74) KAR.LJ 68 (HC)(DB). It is further submitted that rubber processing oil falls under the category .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS', (2008) 17 SCC 385, 'MAMTA SURGICAL COTTON INDUSTRIES, RAJASTHAN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION), BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN', (2014) 4 SCC 87. It is equally well settled legal position that in a taxing Act, one has to look at merely what is clearly said. There is no rule for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing has to be read in, nothing is to be implied, one can only look fairly at the language used. [See : 'UNION OF INDIA VS. IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.', (2011) 4 SCC 635 AND 'BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH', (2011) 6 SCC 545, 'CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS', 2014 (6) SCC 444] [ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X