Plain meaning of tax exemption for fish bars narrowing circulars and keeps dry fish outside sales and purchase tax.

Entry 6-A of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was construed to cover "fish" in general terms, without distinction between dry fish and fresh fish or between edible and non-edible fish. Administrative circulars could not narrow that statutory exemption by limiting it to fish sold for edible purposes, because implementation instructions cannot rewrite the exemption granted by the legislature. On that plain meaning, dry fish remained exempt, the proposed levy under section 5(1) on sale turnover and section 6 on purchase turnover was unsustainable, and the impugned tax notices were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether dry fish falls within the exempted expression "fish" in Entry 6-A of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 so as to bar levy of tax under section 5(1) and purchase tax under section 6, and whether the Commissioner's circulars could validly restrict the exemption to edible fish or to fish sold for edible purposes only.

Analysis: Entry 6-A uses the expression "fish" in general terms and does not create any distinction between dry fish and fresh fish, or between edible and non-edible fish. The exemption power lies with the legislature and, where the statute itself exempts a class of goods under section 8 and the Fifth Schedule, the Commissioner under section 3-A can issue administrative instructions only for implementation and cannot carve out a fresh classification that narrows the exemption. The court applied the plain meaning of the entry and held that introducing a use-based distinction, or limiting the exemption to edible fish, would amount to rewriting the statutory entry. Since purchase tax under section 6 arises only in respect of taxable goods, a levy under that provision also could not stand where the goods themselves were exempt.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's circulars were invalid, and dry fish remained covered by the exemption for "fish". The proposed levy under section 5(1) on sale turnover and under section 6 on purchase turnover was unsustainable and the notices were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the impugned tax proposals relating to dry fish were set aside as being without authority of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing entry grants exemption to goods in general terms, administrative clarification cannot narrow that exemption by introducing distinctions not found in the statute; the statutory language must be given its plain meaning, and purchase tax cannot be levied on exempt goods.

---