Illustrative statutory entries can cover furnace oil as a petroleum product, and related entry tax penalty was sustained.

Furnace oil was held to fall within the entry for "all petroleum products" under the Karnataka entry tax schedule because the phrase "that is to say" was read as illustrative in context, not exhaustive. The court treated the general description and surrounding wording as sufficient to cover furnace oil even though it was not specifically named, and upheld liability to entry tax. The penalty imposed for incorrect returns was also sustained, as the failed challenge to the levy left no ground for interference in writ proceedings and the statutory appellate remedy remained the proper course.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether furnace oil falls within entry 11 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 and is liable to entry tax. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under the Act could be set aside in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether furnace oil falls within entry 11 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 and is liable to entry tax.

Analysis: The entry begins with the words "All petroleum products" and then uses the expression "that is to say" followed by certain illustrative items. The presence of the word "all", together with the use of "others" and the exclusion of certain petroleum products for a specified use, showed that the listed items were not intended to be exhaustive. The entry had to be read as a whole, and the context indicated that furnace oil, being a petroleum product, was covered even though not specifically named.

Conclusion: Furnace oil is liable to entry tax under entry 11, and the assessee's contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Act could be set aside in writ proceedings.

Analysis: Penalty had been imposed under section 5(5) of the Act on the basis of incorrect returns. Once the challenge to the levy itself failed, there was no basis to interfere with the penalty in writ jurisdiction. The proper remedy lay in the statutory appeal provided under the Act, and the existence of possible appellate objections did not justify interference with the assessing authority's order.

Conclusion: The penalty order was upheld and the assessee's contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The entry tax levy on furnace oil and the connected penalty were sustained, and the appeals succeeded by restoring the assessment orders and dismissing the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "that is to say" does not invariably make a statutory entry exhaustive; where the text and context show that the entry is illustrative, goods falling within the general description remain taxable even if not specifically named.

---