TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the additional tax was leviable at the rate of one per cent and not three per cent under serial no.5, as held by the Tribunal ? 2. Whether in view of the subsequent clarificatory notification no.898 dated 7th September, 2012, by which in the exclusion clause of serial no.5 of tyres and tubes of cycles, cycle rickshaw, animal driven vehicle, tractor as described in Schedule II was specifically mentioned; hence the Tribunal was not justified in overlooking the fact that since there was an ambiguity regarding tyres and tubes of tractor hence the subsequent notification can be looked into to provide the proper interpretation of entry no.5 which has to be given to entry no.1 of the notification dated 31.3.2011? 3. Whether even otherwise, where two views are possible in respect of the tyres and tubes of tractor on which the additional tax of one percent or three per cent was to be levied and in view of the fact that tyres and tubes of tractors were not excluded from the description of the goods mentioned at serial no.1 of Schedule II of VAT Act and other interpretation that tractor has not been mentioned at serial no.5 while cycle, cycle rickshaw have been mentioned, the view i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excluded from that entry. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that subsequently the Notification dated 31.3.2011 was itself amended by the State Government by issuing another Notification dated 7.9.2012 clarifying the Entry no.5 of the earlier Notification and it was specifically mentioned therein that tractor tyres and tubes were not included in the goods mentioned at Entry no.5 with particular reference to the goods referred to in Schedule II Part A of the VAT Act. He, therefore, submitted that by excluding tractor tyres and tubes the intention of the authorities was quite clear that if tractor tyres and tubes are excluded from the prescription of goods at Entry no.5 for which the rate of additional tax is prescribed as 3% then the only rate of additional tax, which could be imposed on such goods, would fall under Entry no.1 for which rate of tax is 1%. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal has further referred to the provisions of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and submits that the goods mentioned therein are "declared goods". He further submits that Section 14 (7) Clause (XI) speaks of steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths including tube ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mean goods declared under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 2(i) of the VAT Act reads as follow:- (i) "declared goods" means goods declared under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be of special importance in the inter-State trade or commerce; Section 14 of the Central Sales Taxt Act itself does not include tractor tyres and tubes under any of its sub-sections or sub-clauses. Section 14(xi) speaks of steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths including tube fittings. Section 14(xi) reads as under :- "(xi) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths including tube fitting;" Section 14 (xiv) mentions goods as wheels, tyres, axles and wheels sets. Section 14 (xiv) reads as under:- "(xiv) wheels, tyres, axles and wheels sets;" Tractor tyres and tubes are nowhere mentioned in any of the clauses of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956. It must be borne in mind that these are taxing statutes and have to be interpreted very strictly and the intention of Legislature is to be culled out from what is stated in the statute and not on mere presumption of what the legislature i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... If no class can be found, the rule of 'ejusdem generis' is not attracted. Similar view has been taken by the Court in (1998) 6 SCC 103, State of Karnataka and others vs. Kempaiah wherein it was held that the rule of 'ejusdem generis' is an exception to the rule of construction that general words should be given their full and natural meaning. The Supreme Court was following the principle of law enunciated by Lord Campbel in R.V. Edmundosn (1859) 2 E&E 77 that where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. Section 3-A(1) and Section 3-A (2) (a) and (b) of the VAT Act read as follows:- "3-A. Levy of Additional Tax.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act but subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), every dealer liable to pay tax under this Act shall be liable to pay in addition to the tax payable under any other provision of this Act, an additional tax on the taxable turnover of sale or purchase of goods or both, at such rate not exceeding five percent, as may be specified by the State Government b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. has held that a subsequent legislation can be looked into for proper interpretation of words in the earlier notification when the earlier legislation is found to be ambiguous, obscure or capable of more than one interpretation. Para-13 of the judgment reads as follows:- "13. The learned Counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to a similar exemption notification for the subsequent period issued by the State of U.P. wherein the relevant item is worded thus: "Units making sweetmeats, namkin, reori, gazak (but excluding such confectionery manufacturing units as are registered under the Factories Act, 1948) and restaurants." The learned Counsel submitted that subsequent legislation can be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier legislation when the earlier legislation is found to be obscure or ambiguous or capable or more than one interpretation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Bihar vs. S.K. Roy (1966) Supp. SCR 259 and Yogender Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1969) 3 SCR 742. In Naskar's case (supra), this C....