TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity for the tax periods April, 2007 to March, 2008; April, 2008 to March, 2009; April, 2006 to March, 2007; April, 2005 to March, 2006; April, 2009 to March, 2010; and April, 2010 to March, 2011 respectively. W.P. Nos.24476 and 25349 of 2011 and W.P. No.4092 of 2013 are filed questioning the penalty orders passed by the assessing authority for the tax periods April, 2006 to March, 2007, April, 2005 to March, 2006 and April, 2008 to March, 2009 respectively. W.P. No.33406 of 2010 is filed questioning the garnishee notice dated 16.12.2010, issued by the assessing authority, for recovery of Rs. 2,13,66,366/-. W.P. Nos. 8032 and 9204 of 2014, W.P. No.6365 of 2016 are filed by Godrej Consumer Products Limited questioning the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority for the tax periods April, 2013 to March, 2014; April, 2014 to March, 2015; April, 2011 to March, 2012; and April, 2012 to March, 2013 respectively. W.P. Nos.15982 and 15983 of 2014 are filed questioning the penalty orders passed by the assessing authority for the tax periods April, 2011 to March, 2012 and April, 2012 to March, 2013 respectively. M/s. Godrej Consumer Projects Ltd (the petitioner in W.P. No.6365....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ured by them, under the residuary entry of the V Schedule to the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the "VAT Act"), was upheld primarily on the ground that Entry 20 of Schedule IV to the VAT Act was limited to goods used for agriculture/ horticulture purposes, and 'insect killers' used for house-hold purposes did not fall within its scope. M/s. S.C.Johnson deals with, among others, various categories of products manufactured under a License granted in terms of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the "1968 Act" for short), and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner has been paying VAT @ 4%, as applicable during the relevant period, classifying the said goods under Entry 20 of the IV Schedule to the VAT Act. The subject goods, as detailed in the table below, are referred to by M/s. S.C.Johnson as 'insect killers'/ 'insecticides'. Product Name Insecticide Reg. No. Trade Mark Remarks CIK (Crawling Insect Imiprothrin (0.07% w/w) and CIR- 56,039/2007- Imiprothirn + Baygon Recommended to be used against Killer) Cypermethrin (0.02% w/w) (BAYGON) Aerosol Cypermethrin (A) (270)-4 Cockroaches MIK (Multi Insect Kill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e etc, they cannot be treated as insecticides falling under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act; and there is an underlying difference between household insecticides manufactured by the petitioners, and the insecticide/pesticide referred to in Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act. Elaborate oral submissions were put forth by Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel and Sri Karan Talwar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Written submissions were also filed, on behalf of the petitioners, by their Counsel Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar and Sri Karan Talwar. Oral submissions were made, and written submissions were filed, on behalf of the revenue by Sri M. Govind Reddy, Sri T. Vinod Kumar and Sri J. Anil Kumar, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is convenient to examine the rival submissions, urged by Learned Counsel on either side, under different heads. I. FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PRODUCT IN TAX STATUTES: The dispute, in the present batch of cases, relates to the classification of the subject goods. While the petitioners claim that they are "pesticides and insecticides" under Entry 20 of the IV Schedule t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Pesticides and Plant Protection Equipment". The objects and reasons of Act 9 of 1970, with specific reference to this Entry, read as follows: "Pesticides and Plant Protection Equipments are at present liable to tax at 3 paise in the rupee at each point of sale. With a view to reducing the incidence of tax on these essential requisites for agricultural production, the government proposes to restrict the levy of tax to single point....". (emphasis supplied) When the scope of Entry 78 was expanded in 1976 it included insecticides, fungicides, weedicides, etc. Prior to the year 2000, Entry No. 78 of Schedule I of the APGST Act provided for a tax rate of 1% on Pesticides, insecticides fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and other plant protection equipment and accessories thereof. From 1.01.2000 onwards, the APGST Act, in its first schedule, incorporated a distinct entry i.e. Entry 203 which specifically provided for a higher rate of tax at 8% in respect of "Mosquito repellants and devices of all kinds including electronic repellant devices, refills, mats, coils and accessories thereof". Entry 78 of Schedule I of the APGST Act as it stood, before introduction of the VAT Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Entry 20 of Schedule IV to the Act; if mosquito repellants were classifiable under the expression "insecticides" (prior to its amendment), there is no reason why the subject goods are not classifiable as "insecticides" under the VAT Act; the decision of the Commercial Tax Department, to classify the subject goods under the residuary entry, runs counter to the decision of this Court in Godrej Hicare Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Hyderabad (2007) 6 VST 639 (AP); the subject goods are preparations of chemicals designed to kill insects and pests; such products can only be classified as insecticides and/or pesticides; any preparation, containing any substance specified in the Schedule to the 1968 Act, is an insecticide; HIT CIK contains D-trans Allethrin which is an insecticide; HIT FIK contains imiprothrin and cypermethrin which are insecticides; HIT Chalk contains cypermethrin which is an insecticide; HIT Rat cake contains bromadialone which is a rodenticide; rat is a pest and thus HIT Rat is a pesticide; HIT Anti Roach-Gel contains fipronil which is an insecticide; the subject goods are insecticides within the meaning of the term 'insecticide' as defined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Entry, contain a higher percentage of 'active ingredient'; it is because of the medium through which it is used, such as 'electric units', that its effectiveness changes; if the same repellant is applied through some kind of aerosol, these products would be more effective; the medium, through which the products are used, cannot form the basis for determination/classification of the products; Section 18 of the Insecticides Act imposes a prohibition on the sale of insecticides by any person without a licence; the subject products are being sold off the shelf in the market, which shows that the petitioner's claim, on the basis of their having obtained registration under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, is contrary to the provisions of the Act; registration under Section 9 serves a different purpose; in the absence of any material being placed on record, in relation to compliance with Section 13 or 18 of the Insecticides Act, no reliance can be placed thereupon; Rodenticide is not included in Entry 20; and, therefore, it must be treated as unclassified goods. As the words "pesticides", "insecticides", "fungicides", "weedicides" and "plant protection equipment", used in Entry 20 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e produced, new methods of formulation were developed, and new application techniques were discovered, new audience found uses for pesticides, and today pesticides are still a major part of agriculture's production tools, but have also found uses by industry, State and Federal Governments, municipalities, commercial pesticide applicators, and the public as a whole including home-owners and backyard gardeners; many species of insects are important pests which affect almost all of man's activities and there are well over one million known species of insects in the world, but a very small percentage of these are considered as economically important pests. The expression "pesticide" has been defined in the aforesaid book, in the "glossary for Pesticide Users", as follows : "Pesticide (economic poison) - As defined under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, economic poison (pesticide) means any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any insects, rodents, nematodes, fungi, or weeds, or any other forms of life declared to be pests; and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....causes their leaves to fall), or a desiccant (i.e a substance that promotes drying and is used to remove moisture). It is evident, therefore, that a pesticide is used mainly for protection of plants. Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, by Richard J. Lewis, SR. Fifth Edition, defines 'Insecticide' as : 'Insecticide: 'A type of pesticide designed to control insect life that is harmful to humans, either directly as disease vectors or indirectly as destroyers of crops, food products, or textile fabrics. General types are as follows: (1) Inorganic: arsenic, lead, and copper (inorganic compounds and mixtures); the use of these has diminished sharply in recent years because of the development of more effective types less toxic to humans. (2) Natural organic compounds, such as rotenone and pyrethrins (relatively harmless to humans since they quickly decompose to nontoxic compounds), nicotine, copper naphthenate, and petroleum derivatives. (3) Synthetic organic compounds: (a) Chlordane, lindane, pdichlorobenzene; (b) the organic esters of phosphorus (the parathions and related substances). (4) Of comparatively recent development are pyrethroids, or insect growth regulators, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, Douglas Ruthven published by The Royal Society of Chemistry, explains the Non-agricultural Uses of Herbicides as under:- "Herbicides have been used to control weeds in "non-agricultural" areas for around 50 years, Non-agricultural uses cover very diverse situations from forestry to parks and gardens, from waterways to roads and railways, and from pavements to industrial sites. Not only area the uses varied, but also the uses, many of whom have little knowledge of plants, weed control or the use of herbicides. Perhaps the greatest volume of herbicide is used to maintain man-made surfaces such as railways ballast, road edges, pavements and channels, gravelled areas etc. These are now officially called "land not intended to bear vegetation" by the Pesticides Safety Directorate. They are often referred to as "hard surfaces", and can be divided into porous or non-porous surfaces." The equipment and its accessories, used for protection of plants, are plant protection equipment and accessories thereof. It is through such equipment that pesticides etc are applied to optimise efficiency in pest control management and thereby maximise plant health. The National Instit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. alone during the period prior to the 1976 amendment, fell under Entry No.3; however, multi-purpose batteries, not specified for use in transistors alone could not be treated as "accessories thereof" of wireless reception instruments etc., for the purpose of Entry 3. By the use of the word "thereof", the deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use and it is not enough to show that the articles can be put to other uses also. The general or predominant user seems to determine the category in which an article will fall. On a comparison between different entries in which the term "accessories" is used in the Schedule to describe goods, the word should be construed taking into account whether the goods have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition to any of the specified articles in that entry or not. When it is intended to confine the entry to particular gadgets and particulars thereof, the entry would say so. Therefore, the expression "accessories thereof" 'must mean the general or predominant user of the article only as an accessory of one of the specified items mentioned in that entry. (Union Carbide India Ltd. 1995 (76) ELT 489 (SC). The word "ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de" in the VAT Act can be borrowed from its definition in the Insecticides Act, it is necessary, in the first instance, to consider the scope and object of the said Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of an Act can be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time which actuated the sponsor of the Bill to introduce the same, and the extent and urgency of the evil which he sought to remedy. (State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose 1954 SCR 587; M.K. Ranganathan v. Govt. of Madras (1955) 2 SCR 374 = AIR 1955 SC 604; Chern Taong Shang v. Commander S.D. Baijal (1988) 1 SCC 507). For determining the purpose or object of the legislation, it is permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix leading to the legislation, it is permissible to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which actuated the step to provide a remedy for the then existing malady. (A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti AIR 1956 SC 246; State of West Benga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rules made thereunder. Section 9 of the 1968 Act relates to registration of insecticides and, under sub-section (1) thereof, any person, desiring to import or manufacture any insecticide, may apply to the Registration Committee for the registration of such insecticide, and there shall be a separate application for each such insecticide. Section 9(3) stipulates that, on receipt of any such application for the registration of an insecticide, the Committee may, after such enquiry as it deems fit and after satisfying itself that the insecticide, to which the application relates, conforms to the claims made by the importer or by the manufacturer, as regards the efficacy of the insecticide and its safety to human beings and animals, register, on such conditions as may be specified by it and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, the insecticide, allot a registration number thereto, and issue a certificate of registration in token thereof, within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of the application. Under the second proviso thereto, if the Committee is of the opinion that the precautions claimed by the applicant as being sufficient to ensure safety to human beings or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble under sub-rule (1) for grant or renewal of licence, shall be Rs. 500/- for every insecticide for which the licence is applied. There shall be a separate fee for each place, if any insecticide is sold, stocked or exhibited for sale at more than one place. Under the first proviso thereto, the maximum fee payable in respect of insecticides, commonly used for household purposes and registered as such, shall be Rs. 7,500/- for every place. Rule 10C prohibits sale or storage of insecticides in certain places and, thereunder, no person shall manufacture, store or expose for sale or permit the sale or storage of any insecticide in the same building where any articles, consumable by human beings or animals, are manufactured, stored or exposed for sale. In terms of the Explanation thereto, nothing contained in Rule 10C shall apply to retail sales of household insecticides from the building wherefrom other articles, consumable by human beings or animals, are usually sold provided such household insecticides have been registered as such, and are packed and labelled in accordance with the Insecticide Rules. Section 13(5) of the 1968 Act, r/w the proviso to Rule 10(2) of the Insecticide R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ECT PRODUCTS LOSE THEIR IDENTITY AS AN "INSECTICIDE" ON ITS MIXTURE WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES? Aerosol (HIT CK), a household insecticide used against crawling insects like cockroaches, contains as an active ingredient - imiprothrin (a.i.) at 0.07% and Cypermethrin (a.i.) at 0.20%, as against 50% LPG as the propellant. Insecticides constitute a miniscule component of these products. The subject products, manufactured and sold by the petitioner, contain a very small percentage of 'Insecticide', which is used as a formulation not exceeding the percentage prescribed by the Government in terms of Section 36(z-b) of Act, and are registered and packed for sale as household insecticides. The subject products cater to the specific requirement of urban households, and are not used either for plant protection or for agricultural operations. The goods marketed and sold by the petitioner contain a negligible quantity of d-trans Allethrin, an insecticide mixed by a process with other ingredients like deodorized Kerosene, perfume, pipnoil bentoxide, and propellant Gas; and it loses its original identity and a new or a different product/commodity emerges. Where the quality of a product is change....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, and a "cosmetic" is used to improve the appearance of a person; the quantity of medicament, used in a particular product, is not relevant; and, normally, the extent of its use as a medicinal ingredients is very low, because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. As noted hereinabove, the word 'insecticide' is defined, for the purpose of the Insecticides Act, 1968, to include all kinds of insecticides irrespective of the quantity of insecticides used in the particular product. The question, in the present case, is not whether the quantity of insecticides used is high or low, but whether Entry 20 includes all kinds of insecticides or only those insecticides used for plant protection. Reliance placed by the petitioners on Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd (2006) 145 STC 200 (SC) is, therefore, misplaced. In Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C), the question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the subject products were to be classified as a "medicament" or as a "detergent". The Supreme Court held that there was no fixed test for classification of a taxable commodity; this was the reason why the 'common parlance test' or the '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xclude therefrom 'insecticides' and 'pesticides' used for household purposes; the term "insecticides" and "pesticides" are words of wide import; the legislature has deliberately used these words, as its intent was to include all types of 'insecticides' and 'pesticides', including those used for house-hold purposes, within the ambit of the Entry; each term in Entry 20 must be given meaning, and construed independently, as they are distinct classes of goods; pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides weedicides are not equipment; the words 'plant protection' do not qualify the earlier words "pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or weedicides", but only qualify the word 'equipment'; in Ashok Agencies v. State of Karnataka [2008] 16 VST 570 (Karn. it has been held that all kinds of insecticides, whether used in agricultural operations for killing insects that attack agricultural crops or used for killing domestic insects, fall within Entry 23 of the Schedule annexed to the KVAT Act; from the dictionary meaning and technical literature, it is evident that both 'herbicide' and 'weedicide' are synonyms and refer to similar goods having non-agricultural uses like in parks....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn, other than those mentioned, to come within the Section, must have a degree of similarity to those mentioned. (Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jordan (1976) 3 All ER 775). While the subject goods no doubt contain as small element of insecticide, it has no similarity with the insecticides mentioned in Entry 20 which brings within its ambit only insecticides used for plant protection. It is not in dispute that the subject products are household insecticides used to kill insects in households, and are not used for plant protection. Where the words of a Statute are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to them. The legislature may be safely presumed to have intended what the words plainly say. The plain words can be departed from when reading them as they are leads to patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or invalidation of a law. (Bhaiji v. SDO (2003) 1 SCC 692; Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237). The use of general words in a statute does not preclude inquiry into the object of the statute or the mischief which it was intended to remedy. (Attorney-General v. Brown (1920) 1 K.B. 773; Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 App. Cas. 506). In a taxation statute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e second limb of the said Entry. Entry 20 must be read restrictively so as to exclude "pesticides, insecticides etc" which are not used for plant protection, and are used for other purposes, including as household insecticides. As a plain reading of Entry 20 shows that it was intended to be read in a restricted sense, and as being limited only to those goods used for plant protection, there is no justification in bringing such goods within the ambit of Entry 20 which, on a plain reading, are excluded from its ambit. It is no doubt true that the words "plant protection" qualify the word "equipment" in the second limb of Entry 20 and not the chemicals referred to in its first limb as the words "and other" are used between them. The very fact that "plant protection equipment" are placed in Entry 20 along with the chemicals referred to in the first limb which are mainly used for plant protection, makes it clears that the chemicals, referred to in the first limb of Entry 20, are only those used for plant protection, and none else. Entry 20 of Schedule IV is conditional. It does not bring within its ambit all kinds of pesticides, insecticides, weedicides etc. The concessional rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thana Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom); Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 277 (Bom)). This doctrine is applicable only to different benches of the same High Court. The ratio of the decisions of other High Courts cannot be exalted to the status of a binding precedent nor can the ratio decidendi of those decisions be perpetuated by invoking the doctrine of stare decisis. (Valliama Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai [1979] 4 SCC 429; Thana Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom). Reliance placed by the petitioners on Ashok Agencies [2008] 16 VST 570 (Karn.) is therefore misplaced. Insecticides and pesticides which kill insects and pests which cause damage to plants are chemicals used for plant protection. As shall be elaborated hereinafter, if the legislative intent was to include all forms of insecticides and pesticides within the ambit of Entry 20, it was wholly unnecessary to provide for a separate entry in Entry 100(140) for technical grade insecticides, fungicides, weedicides, herbicides and pesticides, that too at the same rate of tax at 4%/5%. It is evident, therefore, that the legislature intended to tax insecticides, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the scope of the Entry; it is not open to the department to rely upon extraneous material such as the White Paper, to interpret the words "insecticides" etc when the language used by the Legislature is plain, clear and unambiguous; the White Paper does not even remotely indicate any such exclusion; the discussion paper, on road map for national and sub-national VATs in India, was appended by a list of floor rates of 4% categories, as finalized by the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers; Entry 17 in the said list makes no mention of 'plant protection equipment', unlike the present Entry 20 under the VAT Act; both the Entries are at variance; there are many entries such as Entry 2, Entry 20, Entry 39, Entry 123, etc of Schedule IV which neither relate to agricultural nor to basic necessities; and reliance placed on the White Paper, in order to contend that the scope of the Entry is restrictive in nature and is only for agricultural purposes, is incorrect. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act No.9 of 1970, by which Entry 78 was inserted in the First Schedule to the APGST Act, states that levy of tax was restricted to a single point with a view to reduce the inci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tasks was to harmonise the tax structure "through implementation of uniform floor rates of sales tax and discontinuation of sales tax related incentive schemes". With a view to simplify the tax structure, the Empowered Committee recommended that there should basically be only two rates of VAT i.e. 4% and 12.5%, plus a specific category of tax exempted goods and a special VAT rate of 1% only for gold and silver ornaments etc. It was suggested that "under 4% VAT rate category, there should be the largest number of goods (about 270), common for all the States, comprising of items of basic necessities such as medicines and drugs, all agricultural and industrial inputs, capital goods and declared goods". The list of goods with 4% floor rate, as finalized by the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers, contained about 41 items under the table "Goods with 4% Floor Rate". The basic entries in the list finalised by the Empowered Committee were more or less reproduced in the same manner in many of the State Legislations, including in the VAT legislation of Andhra Pradesh. (Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 85 VST 90 (Delhi)). The White Paper on Value Added Tax, (which is a result of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., meshes for insect protection, meshes for gardening and agro meshes, made up of plastic (polymer) and articles thereof. While all the goods referred to in Schedule IV may not relate only to agriculture, the very fact that they have been included in the said Schedule would show that the legislature intended to provide for a concessional rate of tax on these goods. The word 'insecticide', used by the legislature in Entry 20, when read with the preceding and succeeding terms, shows that the legislature intended to group items of the same kind under one entry. The legislative intent, in the present case, can be gathered from the Statement of Objects and Reasons when the entry was inserted, and also on a reference to the White Paper on VAT, wherein a broad consensus as to the rate of tax on goods of basic necessities, and agriculture and industrial inputs, was agreed upon. Both the White Paper on the VAT Act, and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 9 of 1970 (under the APGST Regime) view agricultural inputs, and essential requisites for agricultural production, as requiring reduction in the incidence of tax. The legislative intent, when Entry 78 was initially introduced in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e test should form the basis for interpreting the nature of the subject goods, in the context of levy of VAT; many Entries in the Schedules are a description of the category of the goods; a person, intending to procure or purchase the goods, may either go by the description or the alternative name or the trade name; it is necessary, while determining whether a class of commodities fall within a particular entry, to understand the meaning of the said commodity as understood in common parlance; the popular sense meaning would be 'that sense which people conversant with the subjectmatter, with which the statute deals, would attribute to it; in the instant case, the subject goods were manufactured under a license issued under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the goods are meant for the purpose of killing insects viz., mosquitos, cockroaches and flies; the subject goods are sold and bought as insect killers; the technical meaning of the subject goods also indicates that the goods are meant for the purpose of killing insects; the subject goods are packaged and marked as 'insecticides'; the package of the products, and the leaflets in the package, state that the products are insect kil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould be given to it. (Scientific and Glass Laboratories v. The State of Gujarat (1974) 34 STC 418; Sales Tax Commissioner v. S. N. Bros. (1973] 31 STC 302 (SC) = AIR 1973 SC 78). There is no fixed test for classification of a taxable commodity. (Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd.1; A. Nagaraju Bros. v. State of A.P., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 122). Whether a particular article will fall within a particular Entry or not has to be decided on the basis of tangible material or evidence to determine how such an article is understood in `common parlance' or in the 'commercial world' or in the 'trade circle' or in its popular sense meaning. It is they who are concerned with it, and it is the sense in which they understand it, that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention, when the statute was enacted. The combined factors that are required to be taken note of, for the purpose of classification of the goods, are the composition, the product literature, the label the character of the product and functional utility and predominant or primary use of the commodity which is being classified. (Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd.1; D.C.M. v. State of Rajasthan (1980) 4 SCC 71). Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods produced by the appellant are capable of killing bacteria and fungi which too, is covered in the expressions `pesticide' and `fungicide' there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the aforesaid notification." Fiscal or tax statutes are to be understood in the manner in which the common man would understand it, and not in its botanical or technical sense. The common parlance test requires Entry 20 of Schedule IV to be understood in the manner in which people dealing with it understand it (ie, not only the sellers but also the users understand it). Even the petitioners, while selling the product, have declared/specified the product as 'Household Insecticide' or 'Insecticide for Household Use' which clearly establishes that the product is intended to cater to a different class or segment, and is not intended for general use as a pesticide/insecticide. The subject product is not used as an 'insecticide' in general application for plant protection, growth and regulation, but for killing insects and other household pests. As noted hereinabove, the composition of the subject goods contains a very small portion of "insecticide" as its active ingredient. The product lite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s all kinds of insecticides within its ambit with a view to ensure the safety of human beings and animals from the use of such insecticides. As a person who manufactures products, using any of the insecticides enumerated in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, is required to be registered under the 1968 Act, the subject products were certified by the Board as "household insecticides". The Insecticides Act has itself made an exception of household insecticides, and has exempted it from the rigors of the Insecticides Act. The mere fact that it contains a very small portion of insecticides, would not make the subject products "pesticides and insecticides" falling within the ambit of Entry 20. IX. WOULD THE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON ENTRY 78, OF SCHEDULE I OF THE A.P.G.S.T. ACT, BE APPLICABLE TO ENTRY 20 OF SCHEDULE IV OF THE A.P. VAT ACT? It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the expression in item - 78 of Schedule I to the APGST Act, i.e "Pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and other plant protection equipment and accessories thereof", was comprehensive enough, even according to the Commercial Tax Department, to include the subject goods; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....78 of Schedule I of the APGST Act. The Tribunal held that the words 'other plant protection equipment and accessories thereof' started with the word 'and'; this clearly indicated that the words "plant protection" therein did not qualify the earlier words "pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or weedicides", but only qualified the word "equipment"; weedicides are not plant protection equipment, but are chemicals used as suppressors of weeds and killers of weeds; the word 'insecticides' is normally used to denote chemicals used in buildings for eradication of insects like cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes, ants, white-ants etc; plant protection insecticides are generally known by the word 'pesticides'; the Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Plant Protection, had specifically stated in its circular that "Allothrin 4", which is a chemical used in mosquito mats, is an "insecticide"; and, therefore, they were unable to agree with the interpretation that though Jet Mats came under insecticides, as clarified by the Department of Agriculture, Directorate of Plant Protection, it did not fall under Item 78. The Tribunal held that Jet Mats fell under "insecticides" as they are us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ides falling under Entry 78 of Schedule I, and not as unclassified goods; in Transelektra Domestic Products P Ltd. (1993) 90 STC 436, the Kerala High Court was dealing with mosquito repellents manufactured by the dealer in the name of "Good Knight" and "Banish"; in support of its decision that, in the absence of a specific entry, mosquito repellent should be classified as insecticides, the Kerala High Court referred to the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in Sonic Electrochem Ltd. (1998) 111 STC 181 that "Jet Mat" had, as one of its constituents, "d-Allathrin 4%", and the qualities of an insecticide; it not only repelled mosquitos but was also capable of killing them, but in view of the most specific entry "mosquito repellent" in the Schedule, it could be classified only under that entry; and in the absence of a specific entry, during the relevant assessment years, mosquito repellents fell under classified insecticides covered by Entry 78 of the 1st Schedule to the APGST Act. Where the legislature uses in an Act a legal term which has received judicial interpretation, it must be assumed that the term is used in the sense in which it has been judicially interpreted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is also necessary for this Court to decide this issue in the light of the conflicting opinions of the Tribunal. While Entry 78 of Schedule I of the APGST Act (which is similar to the earlier part of Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the A.P. VAT Act) was considered by the Tribunal in Kumar Agencies74 and Amitha Agencies (2002) 34 APSTJ 17 (STAT), the scope of Entry 78-A of the I Schedule, (similar to Entry 100 (140) of the IV Schedule to the A.P. VAT Act) and its inter-play with Entry 78 was not examined. Entry 78 of the 1st Schedule to the APGST Act related to:- "pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and other plant protection equipment and accessories thereof; Entry 78A related to:- "pesticides concentrate or technical grade pesticides used by any registered manufacturer in the State for manufacture of formulated pesticides". A pesticide formulation is a combination of active and inert ingredients that form an end-use pesticide product. Active ingredients in pure (technical grade) form are not suitable for application, and pesticides are formulated to make them safer or easier to use. Entry 78-A of the I Schedule to the APGST ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ chemicals' for manufacture of pesticides, insecticides, etc; the STAT- Hyderabad, in Revathi Pulvarisers, Kurnool v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1988) 7 APSTJ 21 (STAT), has held that technical grade Methyl Parathion 80% solution is not a pesticide falling under item 78 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act; it is a chemical and cannot be used as a pesticide, and the ratio laid down in Anil Pesticides Ltd. (2003) 132 STC 29, is attracted; technical grade items, mentioned under Entry 100(140) of IV Schedule, cannot be used for agricultural purposes without undergoing a manufacturing process; and the items, covered under Entry 100(140), are only meant for industrial use. Entry 100 of the IV Schedule relates to goods when sold as industrial inputs, and contains 235 sub-entries. It is only if all of them are sold as industrial inputs would they qualify to be taxed under this Entry. Entry 100(140) relates to technical grade insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and pesticides, that too those used as industrial inputs to manufacture pesticides, insecticides etc. If all forms of insecticides are understood to fall within the ambit of Entry 20, it was unnecessary for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....45) E.L.T. 525 (SC)). A residuary entry can be taken refuge of only in the absence of a specific entry; that is to say, the latter will always prevail over the former. (Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd.1; CCE v. Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd (1989) 3 SCC 343; HPL Chemicals v. CCE (2006) 5 SCC 208; Western India Plywoods v. Collector of Customs (2005) 12 SCC 731; Carrier Aircon (2006) 5 SCC 596). A commodity cannot be classified in a residuary entry, in the presence of a specific entry, even if such specific entry requires the product to be understood in the technical sense. (Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C); Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs (1990) 2 SCC 203; Commissioner of Customs v. G.C. Jain (2011) 12 SCC 713). A specific entry would override a general entry. Resort should be had to the residuary entry only when a liberal construction by the specific heading cannot cover the goods in question. (State of Maharashtra v. Bradma of India Ltd (2005) 140 STC 17 (SC; CCE v. Wood Craft Products Limited (1995) 3 SCC 454). In Bradma of India Ltd. (2005) 140 STC 17 (SC) the Supreme Court, while dealing with the classification of 'Electronic Cash Register' unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two rival classification will, however, stand on a different footing". It is no doubt true that in case of competing entries, one falling under the specified items mentioned in the Schedules and the other a residuary entry, the burden is on the revenue to show that the goods can, by no conceivable process of reasoning, be brought within the specific Entry. As noted hereinabove, it is only if all kinds of pesticides and insecticides are held to fall within the ambit of Entry 20, can the subject goods, which are household insecticides, be said to fall within the said Entry. Such a construction would then render Entry 100 (140) redundant, as technical grade pesticides which are classified under Entry 100(140) would also fall within Entry 20. The only manner in which these two entries can be reconciled is if pesticides and insecticides used for plant protection are alone construed as falling within Entry 20, and technical grade insecticides and pesticides alone as falling within the scope of Entry 100(140). In such an event "household insecticides", which are neither used for plant protection nor do they constitute technical grade pesticides and insecticides used as industrial inpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edule to the VAT Act, that Entry 20 covers only such physical equipment which are not covered by either of the aforesaid Entries. While the first part of Entry 20 relates to products i.e., goods used for plant protection, the second part deals with equipment & accessories meant for plant protection through which the goods, covered by the first part, are applied/used. Entry 20 brings within its ambit two different categories i.e., 'goods & equipment' of the same 'genus'. The Entry has to be read in its entirety, and each word used therein has to be given meaning. No part of the Entry can be considered 'surplussage' nor can the legislature be said to have used words in the Entry superfluously. The words ".....and other ..." in Entry 20 of Schedule IV do not take within its fold items under Entry 1 of Schedule I of the VAT Act & Entry 1 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act. Only "plant protection equipment", other than those mentioned in both Entry I of Schedule I and Entry I of Schedule IV, qualify to be assessed under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act; and by no means are the words ".....and other ..." in Entry 20 a surplusage, as no statutory provision can be so read as to make any w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion" products; such an interpretation would also not have a common genus amongst all the items; accepting the contention of the department would mean that the suggested common genus of "Plant Associates" would cover both 'plant protectors' and 'plant killers', for it is only then can the common genus of "Plant Associates" be attributed to all the five items in the Entry; it would then mean that "herbicide" and "weedicide" would cover both plant protectors and plant killers; the preceding three items i.e pesticides, insecticides and fungicides would only cover plant protectors; even to apply the rule of Noscitur a Sociis, there must be a common genus to all the items in the entry; if the common genus of "Plant Associates" is applied to the Entry, "herbicide" and "weedicide" would, in effect, cover two categories of products i.e. plant killers and plant protectors; in effect the only common genus would again be of plant protectors from pesticides till weedicides; all the five items in the first part of the entry are capable of covering not only plant protectors but also non-plant protectors; attributing a common genus of plant protection or plant associates would not be justified on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat category, whether in trade circle it is understood as such, and if it is a good of a technical nature then whether technically it falls in the one or the other category. Once it is found that a particular good satisfies the test, then the issue which would arise for consideration is whether it should be construed broadly or narrowly. (Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 646). It is while examining the question whether the Entry should be read broadly or narrowly that the rules of Noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generic should be borne in mind. The Rule 'Noscitur a sociis', according to Maxwell, means that where two or more words which are susceptible of analogus meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate sence. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, the meaning of the more general being restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general. (Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610; Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd v. Shankarprasad (1999) 6 SCC 275; Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd98; Brindavan Bangles Stores v. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (2000) 1 SCC 674). Nositur a Sociis means that when two words are capable of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of analogous meaning, are coupled together noscuntur a sociis, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, i.e the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general". (M.K. Ranganathan (1955) 2 SCR 374 = AIR 1955 SC 604; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Tenth Edition, p' 332). The rule of "nositur a sociis" cannot, however, prevail where it is clear that the wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of the legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear, that this rule of construction can be usefully applied; it can also be applied where the meaning of the words of wider import is doubtful; but where the object of the legislature in using wider words is clear and free from ambiguity, this rule of construction cannot be pressed into service. (Hospital Mazdoor Sabha38; Brindavan Bangle Stores (2000) 1 SCC 674). The Latin words "ejusdem generic" (of the same kind or nature) are attached to a principle of construction whereby wide wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome common category. This means that the specified things must possess some common and dominant feature. (S.S. Magnhild v. Mclntyre Bros. & Co., (1920) 3 KB 321). To invoke the application of the ejusdem generis rule, there must be a distinct genus or category running through the bodies already named. The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something which can be called a class or kind of objects. Unless there is a genus or category, there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine. (Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal AIR 1967 SC 1857; Maxwell : 'Interpretation of Statutes'; United Town Electric Co., Ltd. v. Attorney-General for Newfoundland (1939) 1 ALLER 423 (PC)). The nature of the special words and the general words must be considered before the rule is applied. (Jagdish Chander Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd AIR 1964 SC 1882 = (1964) 8 SCR 50). The inclusion of several articles under the same heading does not mean that they all constitute one commodity when it is apparent that a particular article belongs to a distinct category. (Sukhu Ram Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....control pests and insects, "herbicides" and weedicides" to kill unwanted plants especially weeds, and "fungicides" are used to inhibit or kill the growth of fungi. These chemicals prevent destruction or damage to crops/plants, and are mainly used for "plant protection". While they may have other uses also, the meaning of the words "pesticides", "insecticides" and "fungicides" is to be restricted to a sense analogous to "herbicides" and "weedicides" which are less general. When each of these words take colour from each other, it is evident that the scope of Entry 20 is restricted to these chemicals when they are used for plant protection alone, and not when it is used for other purposes. The common genus is "plant protection" and each of these items are species of plant protectors. "Pesticides, Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides", in the first part of Entry 20, are goods basically intended for plant protection/connected with plant protection. While herbicides and weedicides are indisputably related/ connected with plants, and are used for their growth and protection, "pesticide" and "insecticide", which are words used along with herbicides, weedicides and fungicides....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and reasons of Act 9 of 1970 in so far as it related to Entry 78 of Schedule I of the APGST Act, the white paper on VAT, and the very structure of Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act require application of the ejusdem genus rule, and when so applied it is evident that the "insecticides" and "pesticides" used in Entry 20 of Schedule IV relate only to those used for plant protection. XIV. IS ENTRY 20 A COMBINED ENTRY: It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the terms 'insecticides and pesticides', and the term 'plant protection equipment', belong to different categories of products; insecticides and pesticides are not equipment; the interpretation placed by the revenue, in effect, restricts the scope of the entire Entry; the contention that the scope of the items, mentioned in the said entry, are restricted only for agricultural purposes is not supported by any reasoning except referring to the words 'plant protection equipment'; the various items, enumerated in the Entry, are of wide import and there is no ambiguity in the language employed therein; and inclusion of several articles, under the same heading, does not mean that they all constitute one commodity wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be understood as a dynamic document which contemplates changes in technological and socio-economic conditions; the House of Lords, in Comdel Commodities Ltd. MANU/UKHL/0038/1990, has held that when a change in the social conditions produces a novel situation, which was not in contemplation at the time when the statute was first enacted, there can be no apriori assumption that the enactment does not apply to the new circumstances; and if the language of the enactment is wide enough, to extend to those circumstances, there is no reason why it should not apply in the instant case. In Porritts & Spencers (Asia) Ltd 42 STC 435: (AIR 1979 SC 300, the Supreme Court, while considering the question whether 'dry felts' fell within the category of "all varieties of cotton, woolen or silken textiles" specified in Item 30 of Schedule 'B' to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, held:- ".... there may be wide ranging varieties of woven fabric and they may go on multiplying and proliferating with new developments in sciences and technology and inventions of new methods, materials and techniques but nonetheless they would all be textiles. It is true that our minds are conditioned by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya Pradesh, Indore v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh ([1967] 19 STC. 469 (SC); Prayag Chemical Works (1970) 25 STC 85). The words, used in Entries in sales tax legislations, must be construed as understood in common parlance. The words used by the legislature must be given their popular sense meaning "that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it." (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. G.S. Pai & Co. (1980) 45 STC 58). Words, in a sales tax statute, must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance. If it has not been defined in the Act, and is a word of every day use, it must be construed in its popular sense. It is to be construed as understood in common language. (Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Asstt. STO AIR 1961 SC 1325; Craies on Statute Law, p. 153 (5th Edn.); Planters Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King (1952) 1 D.om. L.R. 385; Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants' Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Sales Tax Department) (1956) 7 STC 99). Where a word has a scientific or technical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MOSQUITO REPELLENTS" FROM THE AMBIT OF ENTRY 20: It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the subject goods cannot be construed as mosquito repellants; HIT CIK, HIT Rat and HIT Chalk pertain to rats and cockroaches, and other crawling insects; they are not used in relation to mosquitoes; HIT FIK is an insecticide as it is used as a flying insect killer i.e. its application pertains to all kind of flying insects, and not only to mosquitoes; HIT FIK contains d-Transallethrin, a poisonous substance that directly affects the nervous system of the flying insect thereby killing it almost immediately; the subject goods, especially HIT FIK, cannot be construed as a mosquito repellant; Entry 20 of Schedule IV specifically excludes 'mosquito repellants' from its ambit; an Entry cannot exclude from its scope what is not included within its ambit; even the exclusion, i.e. 'mosquito repellents in any form', in Entry 20 establishes that the legislature never intended to limit the scope of the Entry to insecticides, pesticides, etc used only for agricultural/horticulture purposes; the words 'in any form' demonstrate that mosquito repellents used for household use alone fall outside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable to the facts of the present case, as it dealt with the interpretation of a specific Entry which deals with mosquito repellants under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, and the Entry therein specifically dealt with 'jet mats' i.e. mosquito repellant mats, whereas undisputedly the subject goods were different; in any event, the Supreme Court denied the benefit to 'Jet Mats' on the ground that the same were commonly known and perceived by the market as mosquito repellant mats, and therefore the said goods were to be treated as mosquito repellants irrespective of their ability to kill mosquitoes; in the present case, the subject goods are not perceived by the market as 'mosquito repellants', but as insect killers which, in turn, are only insecticides; except for CIK, which is meant for Cockroaches, all other products ie MIK, FIK, AIK, have multipurpose uses against cockroaches, flies, and mosquitoes; these products are meant for killing these insects; and, therefore, the goods are classifiable as insect killers, and do not fall under the ambit of "mosquito repellent". As Entry 20 of Schedule IV specifically excludes "mosquito repellents in any form" from its ambit, it is necessar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or partial exemption under Entry 98 of the Act; and when Entry 129 clearly stipulated that mosquito repellent was taxable, the rate of tax had been provided therein, and as the product in question was also a mosquito repellent, there was no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. In Godrej Hicare Limited (2007) 6 VST 639 (AP) the question which fell for consideration was whether "mosquito repellents" were exigible to tax under Entry 78 of the First Schedule which included pesticides and insecticides, or whether "mosquito repellents" were exigible to tax under "general goods". The Division Bench held that, prior to 01.01.2000, mosquito repellents were classifiable as insecticides under Entry 78; however w.e.f. 1.01.2000, mosquito repellents were specifically classifiable under the specific entry i.e. Entry 203 at the rate of 8%; and even after incorporation of Entry 203 in the APGST Act, w.e.f 01.01.2000, the subject goods (being insecticides and pesticides) were being taxed under Entry 78; even the Department understood the scope of the Entry to include all insecticides and pesticides, and not merely those used in agriculture; Entry 78 of the APGST Act was introduced verbat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; it had an independent entry; when the Karnataka Sales Tax Act came into force, it had only one entry; it was subsequently substituted by the Entry at Sl.No.23; the understanding of the Legislature was that, as the words used in the said entry were clear and unambiguous, it did not include mosquito repellant; but when the Karnataka High Court in Ashok Agencies [2008] 16 VST 570 (Karn.) ruled that, because of the presence of "allethrin" in the mosquito repellant, it fell within the definition of "insecticide", it became necessary for the Legislature to make their intention clear; therefore, they substituted the said entry by a later entry specifically excluding mosquito coils and mosquito repellants; they also added the words "and the like", used for non- agricultural or non-horticultural purposes; therefore, the entire object of the substituted provision was to exclude mosquito repellant from the ambit of the word "insecticide", if it was used for non-agricultural or non-horticultural purposes. As noted hereinabove "mosquito repellents in any form" was excluded from the ambit of Entry 20, by the amendment made on 23.10.2005 with retrospective effect from 01.09.2005. The amendme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lab (2015) 8 SCC 557). The object of such an enactment is to remove and rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna of other nature, which has been found by the Court to be vitiated by an infirmity. Its aim is to effectuate and carry out the object for which the earlier principal Act had been enacted. Such an amending Act to make "small repairs" is a permissible mode of legislation and is frequently resorted to in fiscal enactments. (Pro Lab (2015) 8 SCC 557; Krishnamurthi & Co. v. State of Madras (1973) 2 SCR 54). The question whether the subject goods, (none of which are "mosquito repellents in any form"), were insecticides/pesticides or not did not arise for consideration in any of the aforesaid judgments wherein the goods involved were mosquito repellents. It was not necessary for the Legislature, therefore, to clarify what was not declared by Courts/Tribunal to be insecticides/pesticides. Existence of an illegal act, proceedings or rule or legislation is the sine-quo-non for any validating legislation to validate the same. There can be no validation of what has yet to be done, suffered or enacted. (Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra (2014) 4 SCC 583, at page 602). The petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on the distinction, if any, between insect killers and insect repellents as the pesticides/insecticides referred to in Entry 20 are those used for plant protection, and not "household insecticides". XVII. EFFECT OF AN EXCLUSION CLAUSE IN AN ENTRY:- It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that what was excluded from Entry 20 is 'mosquito repellant' which is a household insecticide; the exclusion clause expands the genus of various items enumerated in the said entry; and when Entry 20 was amended to specifically exclude mosquito repellents, there was nothing that prevented the legislature from specifying that the Entry was applicable only to goods used for agricultural/horticultural purposes, and not for items used for house-hold purposes. In Allen v. Emmerson [1944] K.B. 362, it was held:- "No theatre or other place of public entertainment (other than such places of entertainment as are now subject to the provisions of the Barro-in-Furnacess Corporation Act, 1868, Section 164, and which last mentioned places are to continue subject to the provisions of that Act) shall be opened or used unless the same shall first have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act). It is to remove the basis of the judgments of the Tribunal was the exclusion clause inserted. The words "in any form" refer to all kinds of mosquito repellents be it in the form of coils, mats or liquids. The Legislature has, thereby, made it clear that mosquito repellents in any form were not pesticides/insecticides falling within the ambit of Entry 20. That does not, however, mean that the subject goods are "insecticides"/"pesticides" falling within the ambit of Entry 20. XVIII. ARE TWO VIEWS OF ENTRY 20 POSSIBLE NECESSITATING THE ONE WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE TO BE ADOPTED? It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that insect killers, being insecticides, fall under Entry 20 of Schedule IV to the VAT Act; even if the product is conceivably classifiable both under Entry 20 as well as the residuary entry, benefit should be given to the assessee of Entry 20; and in Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P [2008] 14 VST 259 (SC) the Supreme Court held that it is a settled principle of law that, when two views are possible, one which favours the assessee should be adopted". The subject goods are not pesticides/insecticid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the suggested restrictive interpretation is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court; and applying the said ratio, to the facts of the present case, the subject goods, capable of killing cockroaches, mosquitos, houseflies, etc., are classifiable as 'insecticides' under Entry 20. In Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd (2012) 56 VST 1, the attention of this Court was not drawn to Entry 100(140) of Schedule IV and, consequently, that all forms of pesticides/insecticides did not fall under Entry 20. The question whether pesticides/insecticides falling under Entry 20 are only those which are used for plant protection was also not examined therein. A judgment is a precedent binding on a co-ordinate bench only for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows therefrom. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a Statute and that too taken out of their context. (Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 345; CCE v. Alnoori Tobacco Products (2004) 6 SCC 186; London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton 1951 AC 737; Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970) 2 ALL.E.R 294; Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham 1971 (1) WLR 1062 Bri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imb of Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act, when the first limb of Entry 20 is read along with the second limb applying the common parlance test, it is evident that only pesticides and insecticides used for plant protection would fall within the ambit of the said entry, and not all kinds of pesticides and disinfectants. Even otherwise neither did any Entry, similar to Entry 100 (140) of the IV Schedule fall for consideration nor was the scope of any such entry examined along with Item 18 of the I Schedule to the Central Excise Act. Reliance placed on Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 646 is, therefore, misplaced. In Godrej Consumer Products Limited10, Entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka VAT Act read as under: "23. Chemical fertilizers, Chemical Fertilizer mixtures, bio-fertilizers, micro nutrients, gypsum, plant growth promoters and regulators; rodenticides, fungicides, weedicides and herbicides; insecticides or pesticides but excluding phenyl, liquid toilet cleaners, floor cleaners, mosquito coils, mosquito repellants and the, like used for non-agricultural or non-horticultural purposes". The Karnataka High Court compared the said entry with....