Deciding Authority : Supreme Court
Date of Judgement : 07/01/2000
Bench: S.P. KURDUKAR & V.N. KHARE & SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI
Facts : It appears that one of the bangle merchants sought clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as to whether “glass” bangles and plastic bangles” would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and is subject to entry tax at 2%, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 21st My, 1992 in exercise of his powers under Section 12(7) of the Entry Tax Act clarified that glass bangles and plastic bangles would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and is subject to entry tax at 2%. Consequent upon the said clarification, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax made an assessment order for 1992*93 and demanded entry tax on bangles. The appellants aggrieved by the assessment orders preferred various writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. The Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, by his common judgment and order dated 15th March, 1995, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the assessment order made against the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the respondents herein aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge preferred writ appeals
before the High Court. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court after hearing the parties vide its common judgment and order dated 22nd June,1998 allowed these appeals and held that the glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and are subject to entry tax at 2%. Consequently, the learned Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Judgement : It is true that the identity of bangles is distinct than the articles of the glass yet they are identified are called by the name of material used for making such bangles for example glass bangles, plastic bangles etc. Even in common parlance and in the market such bangles are known as glass bangles and therefore the expression articles of glass in Entry 30 would include the bangles i.e. articles made of glass. The bare reading of Entry 30 would make it clear that the articles mentioned therein are subject to payment of entry tax. The words “and” used in Entry 30 would unmistakably indicate that the glass sheets (raw materials) as well as all articles made of glass would be subject to payment of entry tax. The same analogy has to be extended to Entry 54.
As stated earlier on reading Entry 30 and Entry 54, we have no manner of doubt that there is neither any ambiguity nor they lack any clarity. The legislature intended to levy and collect entry tax on the articles mentioned in both these entries. The words used therein are of wider import and clearly indicate that all articles made of glass or made from all kinds of and all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene and like materials are subjected to payment of entry tax. It cannot be disputed that the articles in question namely , bangles are made of glass and/or made of plastic etc.
Held : Appeal Dismissed with costs.
Tejasv Anand , IV th year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL, DELHI.