TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms quashing of entry tax on rubber processing oil under Karnataka Tax laws</h1> <h3>The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit) -2, Mysuru, The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Gandhinagar Bengaluru, The State Of Karnataka Versus M/s. Mysuru Polymers And Rubber Products Ltd.,</h3> The court upheld the Single Judge's decision to quash the levy of entry tax on rubber processing oil under Karnataka Tax laws. The court emphasized the ... Levy of Entry Tax - rubber processing oil purchased by the assessee - clarification dated 05.12.2012 issued by Government of Karnataka - HELD THAT:- It is well established rule of interpretation of taxing statutes in words of Lord Simonds that subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose and that every Act of Parliament must be read according to natural construction of its words. It is evident that there is no mention of rubber processing oil in the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and therefore, the same cannot be subjected to entry tax - No reasons have been assigned for issuance of clarification dated 05.12.2012. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Validity of order quashing levy of entry tax on rubber processing oil under Karnataka Tax laws.Analysis:The appellant, a registered dealer under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, challenged an order imposing entry tax on rubber processing oil. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes re-assessed the appellant and levied entry tax at 5% based on a clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Single Judge quashed the order and the clarification, allowing the appellants to reconsider the matter. The appeal was filed challenging this decision.The Additional Government Advocate argued that rubber processing oil should be considered a petroleum product, citing previous judgments. On the contrary, the respondent contended that rubber processing oil does not fall under the category of petroleum products and is not covered by the relevant Notification. The respondent emphasized that the statutory clarification lacked reasoning, citing legal precedent to support their stance.The court examined the submissions and reviewed the taxing statutes' interpretation principles. It was emphasized that clear words are necessary to tax a subject, with no room for presumption or implication. Referring to various legal precedents, the court reiterated the importance of adhering to the language used in the statutes without any intendment or equity considerations in tax matters.Referring to the Notification dated 30.03.2002, the court noted that rubber processing oil was not mentioned as a petroleum product subject to entry tax. As a result, the court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that there were no grounds to differ from the conclusion reached. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the quashing of the levy of entry tax on rubber processing oil under the Karnataka Tax laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
