Classification of pickle jars under tax entry, court emphasizes circular's binding nature & grants petition.

The court held that pickle jars made of china clay should be classified under entry 118 and taxed at 4 per cent, contrary to the assessing authority's decision to tax them at 8 per cent under entry 112. The court emphasized the binding nature of the circular issued by the Commissioner, even though it was withdrawn, and stressed the importance of following such directives. Relying on the contemporanea expositio principle and the need for consistency in judicial decisions, the court allowed the petition, set aside previous orders, and remitted the matter for modification of the assessment order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issue involves the classification of pickle jars under entry 112 or entry 118 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Classification under Entry 112 or Entry 118:
The petitioner contended that the turnover pertaining to sales of pickle jars should be taxed at 4 per cent under entry 118, but the assessing authority taxed it at 8 per cent under entry 112. The appellate authorities upheld this decision, stating that pickle jars made of china clay fall under entry 112 as chinaware or porcelainware, taxable at 8 per cent.

Binding Nature of Circular Issued by Commissioner:
The petitioner argued that a circular issued by the Commissioner, stating that jars made of clay are taxable at 4 per cent under entry 118, should be binding on all authorities. The court noted that the circular, though withdrawn in 1979, was applicable to the assessment year in question. The court emphasized that such circulars are binding on authorities and must be followed faithfully.

Contemporanea Expositio Principle and Consistency in Judicial Decisions:
The court relied on the principle of contemporanea expositio to interpret the classification of articles under different entries. It also highlighted the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, noting that the Tribunal should not have departed from previous assessments without a justifiable reason. The court allowed the petition, set aside the previous orders, and remitted the matter for modification of the assessment order.

This judgment clarifies the importance of following circulars issued by competent authorities, the application of the contemporanea expositio principle in statutory interpretation, and the need for consistency in judicial decisions.

---