Exemption notifications for computer parts construed broadly, with assessee-friendly interpretation defeating turnover tax levy.

Parts of computers and computer peripherals were treated as covered by the exemption notifications under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act because the statutory entry for computers used broad language, including "computers of all kinds" and "their parts." The notifications were read in light of the legislative scheme and the object of promoting the information technology industry, with contemporaneous departmental understanding also supporting the broader reading. Where two interpretations of an exemption notification were possible, the construction beneficial to the assessee prevailed. On that basis, parts of computers and peripherals were held exempt from turnover tax and the State levy was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether parts of computers and parts of computer peripherals were covered by the exemption notifications issued under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and were therefore not liable to turnover tax under section 6-B of that Act.

Analysis: The notification exempted turnover tax on computers, computer peripherals, computer consumables and computer cleaning kits falling under Serial No. 20 of Part C of the Second Schedule. The statutory entry for computers used broad language, including "computers of all kinds" and "and their parts", and the Court treated the parts of computers as falling within the same legislative fiction for the purpose of levy. The exemption notifications were construed in the context of the legislative scheme and the object of promoting the information technology industry. The Court also relied on the contemporaneous understanding of the departmental authorities and the principle that where an exemption notification is capable of two views, the interpretation beneficial to the assessee must prevail.

Conclusion: Parts of computers and parts of computer peripherals were held to be exempt from turnover tax under the notifications issued under section 8-A, and the levy sought to be imposed by the State was not sustainable.

---