Modern technological devices can fall within broad taxing entries when the statutory description covers their ordinary current meaning.

General words in a taxing entry may extend to modern technological devices when read in light of current conditions, and on that basis mobile handsets were treated as wireless reception instruments within entry 49 of Schedule II under the M.P. entry tax law. The alternative contention that they fell under a different entry did not matter because the applicable rate was the same. The challenge to the 27 January 2007 circular also failed because it was not shown to be a determination under section 70 of the M.P. VAT Act, and the resulting assessment and revisional orders were sustained in effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether mobile handsets fall within entry 49 of Schedule II of the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 and are liable to entry tax at one per cent; (ii) whether the circular dated 27 January 2007 and the consequential assessment and revisional orders were unsustainable.

Issue (i): whether mobile handsets fall within entry 49 of Schedule II of the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 and are liable to entry tax at one per cent.

Analysis: The entry covered wireless reception instruments and apparatus. The Court applied the settled principle that statutory words are to be read in the light of current conditions, and that general words can extend to new inventions and technological developments not contemplated when the enactment was framed. On that approach, a mobile handset, being a modern wireless communication device, answered the description in entry 49. The alternative suggestion that it might fall under entry 53 did not affect the result because the rate of tax was the same.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner. Mobile handsets were held to be covered by entry 49 of Schedule II and liable to entry tax at one per cent.

Issue (ii): whether the circular dated 27 January 2007 and the consequential assessment and revisional orders were unsustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that the Commissioner's circular was not shown to have been issued as a determination under section 70 of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002. In any event, since the tax rate under the competing entries was the same, and the handset was covered by entry 49 in any case, the challenge to the circular and the resulting orders did not survive.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner. The circular and the assessment and revisional orders were upheld in effect.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because mobile handsets were treated as covered by the relevant wireless entry, and the impugned tax action was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: General words in a taxing entry must be construed to include modern technological devices that fall within the ordinary and current meaning of the description used by the legislature.

---