Taxing statutes require clear language: "sales" could not be read to include "purchases" in section 7.

The Mysore High Court considered whether turnover from purchases of raw wool could be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, by construing "sales" in section 7 to include "purchases" or by supplying the word "purchase" as an omitted term. It held that the Act consistently distinguished sales from purchases, and that a taxing provision cannot be expanded by implication, extension of language, or judicial correction of an alleged omission unless the statute clearly shows that intention. The court declined to treat the omission as a casus omissus, held that "sales" did not include "purchases", and concluded that the impugned purchases were not taxable on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the turnover arising from purchase of raw wool during the relevant period was liable to tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and whether the word "sales" in section 7 could be construed to include "purchases" or permit the court to supply the omitted word "purchase".

Analysis: The charging scheme of the Act distinguished between sales and purchases throughout its provisions, and section 7, on its plain language, used both expressions separately. In a taxing statute, liability cannot be imposed by implication, extension of language, or by supplying an alleged omission unless the legislative intention is clear from the statute itself. The subsequent amendment did not justify treating the original provision as if the omitted word had always been there, and the court declined to treat the omission as a casus omissus capable of judicial correction.

Conclusion: The word "sales" in section 7 did not include "purchases", and the alleged omission could not be supplied. The impugned purchases were not liable to tax on that basis, and the revision was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---