Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rubber brought into the local area was exempt from entry tax as agricultural produce under the definition in section 2(A)(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, read with section 3(6) and Sl. No. 2 of the Second Schedule.
Analysis: The definition of "agricultural produce or horticultural produce" in section 2(A)(1) expressly excludes rubber. The exemption in section 3(6) applies only to goods specified in the Second Schedule, and Sl. No. 2 grants exemption only to agricultural produce including tea, coffee and cotton. The Court held that the Second Schedule is not exhaustive of all items that may commonly be regarded as agricultural produce, and that an item expressly excluded by the definition clause cannot be brought within the exemption unless the Schedule specifically provides for it. The argument based on punctuation and on decisions under other enactments was rejected because the statutory definition in the present Act governed the expression for purposes of this Act.
Conclusion: Rubber was not entitled to exemption as agricultural produce, and the claim for exemption failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute contains an express exclusion in the definition clause, an exemption provision in a Schedule cannot be expanded to include the excluded commodity unless the statute specifically creates that exemption.