Common parlance classification of insecticides upheld; exclusionary tax entry could not be widened beyond legislative intent.

Karnataka HC held that products sold as G.K. Aerosol, Hit Aerosol, Hit Rat and Hit Line fell within Entry 23 of Schedule III of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act as insecticides or pesticides, taxable at 4%. Applying common parlance and statutory classification, the Court held that the exclusionary words in the entry, including "and the like," could not be expanded beyond the items the Legislature expressly contemplated. It distinguished repellants and cleaning products from goods that actually kill insects or rodents, and found the disputed products to be insecticides and rodenticides, not repellants. The Tribunal's classification was upheld and the State's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods sold as G.K.Aerosol, Hit Aerosol, Hit Rat and Hit Line fall within Entry 23 of Schedule III of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as insecticides or pesticides taxable at 4%, or are excluded from that entry and liable to tax at 12.5%.

Analysis: The substituted Entry 23 had to be read in the light of its legislative history and the earlier treatment of insecticides and mosquito repellants under the sales tax regime. The Court held that the exclusionary words in the entry, including the phrase "and the like", could not be expanded beyond the class of items expressly contemplated by the Legislature. Applying the principles of common parlance and statutory classification, the Court distinguished mosquito repellants, phenyl, liquid cleaners and floor cleaners from products that kill insects or rodents. The disputed products were found to be insecticides and rodenticides that actually kill crawling and flying insects and rodents, and not repellants.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly classified under Entry 23 of Schedule III and taxable at 4%; the revision petitions therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's classification was upheld and the State's challenge was rejected, resulting in dismissal of the revision petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing entry expressly excludes only specified items, the exclusion cannot be enlarged by ejusdem generis or by the phrase "and the like" to cover goods not contemplated by the Legislature; classification must follow the ordinary commercial understanding of the goods and the legislative context.

---