TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch, 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 of 2016) is engaged in the business of manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Killer) Cyfluthrin (0.025% w/w) and Transflutrin (0.04% w/w) Aerosol CIR 41,056/2002-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nderlying 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 to the VAT Act and are liable to be subjected to tax at the concessional rate of tax of 4%/5%, it is the case of the revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, read thus:- "Pesticides, Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and other plant protection equipment and accessories there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "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 in the Insecticides Act, 1968; insecticide is a generic product having wide varieties, among which mosquito repellants stand excluded under Entry 20 of Schedule IV of the Act; it is evident, therefore, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh 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 the IV Schedule, are not defined in the VAT Act, it is necessary to understand their meaning. The ordinary meaning of the word "pest", as given in Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, is: "Any deadly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so 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 plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant."(Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1994) 92 STC 117). 'Pesticide' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary, Second Edition, as 'a comprehensive word to include subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd 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, which act as neurotoxins, preventing larvae from becoming adult forms (juvenile hormones); and metabolic inhibitors, e.g. imidazole, which function as structural antagonists. The word 'Fungicide' is defined therein to mean:- Fungicide: Any substance that k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dens, 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 Institute of Plant Health Management (NIPHM) is a premier autonomous Institution under the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India with the mandate to promote environmentally sustainable Plant Health Management practices in diverse and changing agro-climatic conditions. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 "accessories thereof" in Entry 20 are accessories of plant protection equipment. In G. Radhakrishna Murthy & Company v. Commercial Tax Officer (1997) 8 SCC 37 = (1999) 113 STC 161 (SC), the Supreme Court held that an inclusive definition had been given clarifying that cosmetic and toilet preparations would include scents, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 Bengal v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241; Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 397; and Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 2114). From the Statement of Objects and Reasons, for enacting the Insecticides Act, 1968, it is evident that, in the months of April and May, 1958, many persons died in the States o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide. 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 animals are not such as can be easily observed or that, notwithstanding the observance of such precautions, the use of the insecticide involves serious risk to human beings or animals, it may refuse to register the insecticide. Section 13 relates to grant of licence and, under sub-section (1) thereof, any person, desiring to manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, 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 Rules, prescribes a separate fee for grant or renewal of licence in respect of insecticides for domestic use. Under the Explanation to Rule 10-C, the restriction placed by Rule 10-C on the sale of insecticides does not apply to retail sales of household insecticides. Section 18 prohibits the sale, distribution and transport of any insecticid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....niscule 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 changed, and it is commonly and commercially known as a different commodity, it cannot then be said that the new product would fall in the original Entry. (Tiki Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (2010) 27 VST 67). Sales tax enactments are intended to tax sales of different commercial commodities, and not to tax the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 'commercial usage test' are the most common; whether a particular article would fall within a particular tariff heading or not had to be decided on the basis of tangible material or evidence to determine how such as article is understood in 'common parlance' or in the 'commercial world' or in 'trade circle' or in its popular sense meaning; it is they who a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 and gardens, waterways, roads and railways, and pavements to industrial sites; the intended usage of both 'herbicide' and 'weedicide' is to kill unwanted plants either for agricultural or nonagricultural purposes; even otherwise since weedicides and herbicides are only one category of "plant associates" amidst three other categories that are not exclusively....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 where literal interpretation leads to a result that does not subserve the object of the legislation, another construction in consonance with the object can be adopted. (State of Kerala v. A.P. Mammikutty 2015) 10 SCC 632; Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT (1990) 2 SCC 231). Where various interpretations of a Section are admissible, it is a strong reason against adopting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 of tax at @ 4%/ 5%, under the IV Schedule is available only when these goods are used for plant protection. All the goods included in the first limb of Entry 20 are commonly used for plant protection. The second limb of Entry 20 brings within its ambit equipment used for plant protection. Chemicals used for plant protection, and the equipment through which they are applie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king 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, pesticides etc at a concessional rate only when they were used either as industrial inputs or for plant protection, and not otherwise. The subject products, dealt with by petitioners, are used for purposes other than for plant protection or as industrial inputs. They are household insecticides, considered as a separate class of goods even under the Insecticides Act, and are out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 incidence of tax on the essential requisites for agricultural production. A reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. The weight of judicial authority leans in favour of the view that the Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 efforts of all States in formulating the basic design of State Level Value Added Tax), under the caption "VAT Rates and Classification of Commodities", read as follows: ".... Under 4% VAT rate category there will 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egislature 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 the APGST Act, was to cover essential requisites of agriculture production. The consensus, arrived at the time of introduction of VAT across the country, was that a uniform rate structure should be imposed. The lower rate of 4% tax was agreed upon in respect of basic necessities, and all agriculture and industrial inputs. On a plain reading of the contents of the White Paper, the products enumerated in En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry, 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 killers, and are useful for killing cockroaches, houseflies, mosquitoes, etc; and, in common parlance, the subject goods are known as insecticides. While the meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law, the proper construction of the Statute is. (Revenue and Customs v. Premier Foods Ltd. (2007) EWHC 3134 (Ch)). When considering the meaning of a word, often one goes to a dictiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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). The words, used in a law imposing a tax, should be construed in the same way in which they are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force. (Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. CST (1981) 3 SCC 542). The words or expressions must be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it, and it is the sense....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 literature and the label classify the subject goods as "household insecticide". When a consumer purchases these products he does not ask for a pesticide or an insecticide but asks for the product by its brand name as it is a household insecticide used to kill household insects and pests. People in the trade, i.e the persons who sell the goods in the market and those who purchase it, would ask for pesticides and insecticides when they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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; tax was, hitherto, being levied on the said goods under item 78 prior to the introduction of the VAT Act; the same has been reproduced verbatim in Entry 20 of Schedule IV to the AP VAT Act (w.e.f. 01.04.2005); consequently, the legal position prevailing under the APGST Act should continue to receive the same interpretation under the VAT Act also; the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while interpreting the erstwhile Entry 78 of the First Sched....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 used for repelling or killing Mosquitos from residential and non-residential buildings, and as the chemical is classified as an "insecticide" even by the Directorate of Plant Protection. In Amitha Agencies (2002) 34 APSTJ 17 (STAT), the question which arose for consideration before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether 'Mosquito Repellents", sold by the appellants, were insecticides falling under Entry 78 of the 1st Schedule to APGST A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 unless a contrary intention appears. (Craies on 'Statute Law'; Dewan Brothers v. Central Bank of India AIR 1976 SC 1503). Where the Legislature uses an expression bearing a well-known legal connotation, it must be presumed to have used the said expression in the sense in which it has been so understood. (Banarsi Debi v. Income Tax Officer AIR 1964 SC 1742 = (1964) 7 SCR 539). Where a word of doubtful meaning has received a clear judicial interpre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct) 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 Act brought within its scope technical grade pesticides or pesticides concentrate. Pesticide formulations (including household pesticides) do not fall within its ambit. If Entry 78 were to be read widely, and construed as bringing within its fold all kinds of pesticides, then pesticides concentrate and technical grade pesticides would also fall within the ambit of Entry 78, and it was wholly unnecessary for the legislature to have prescribed a separate entry i.e., Entry 78-A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 legislature to separately provide for these goods in Entry 100(140). As pesticides and insecticides, when used as industrial inputs, fall under Entry 100(140), the pesticides and insecticides referred to in Entry 20 can only be those used for plant protection, and not others. It is only because technical grade insecticides and pesticides cannot be directly used for agricultural purposes would they not fall under Entry 20. The Legislature has, in its wisdom, provided for tax to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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' under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, held that a specific entry would override the general entry; and resort should be had to the residuary heading only when a liberal construction by the specific heading cannot cover the goods in question. In Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (SC) the Supreme Court held that "the question before it was whether the Department was right in claiming that the items in question are dutiable under tariff entry No.68; this was the residu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 inputs for manufacture of pesticides and insecticides, would not fall either under Entry 20 or 100(140) of the IV Schedule to the VAT Act. They would, therefore, be taxable at the revenue neutral rate of 12.5%/14.5% treating them as falling within the residuary items in Schedule V of the VAT Act. XII. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT OF COMPETING ENTRIES IN THE SAME/DIFFERENT SCHEDULES OF A TAX STATUTE: It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the scope of competing Entries (Entry 1 of Schedule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 word used in an Entry redundant or inapposite surplussage. Agricultural implements which fell within Entry 226 of the I Schedule to the APGST Act have now been divided between Entry I of Schedule I and Entry I of Schedule IV of the VAT Act. While hand operated or animal drawn agricultural implements in Entry 226 are now classified under Entry I of Schedule I of the VAT Act, power operated agriculture implements, which hitherto formed part of Entry 226 of the I Schedule, are now classified under Entry 1 of Schedul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....secticides 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 a true interpretation of Entry 20; the doctrine of ejusdem generis has no application; the terms 'insecticides and pesticides', and the term 'plant protection equipment', belong to two different categories of products; insecticides and pesticides are not equipment; not just the species, but the genus of the Entry itself is different i.e. while insecticides, etc. belong to one genus, 'plant protection equipment' belong to an entirely different genus; the words 'plant protection' cannot be read separately from 'equipmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 being analogously defined, then they take colour from each other. The term ejusdem generis, a facet of Nositur a Sociis, means that the general words following certain specific words would take colour from the specific words. (Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. M/s. Kartos International (Judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2983-2988 of 2011) dated 06.04.2011). Entries in the Schedules of Sales Tax statutes list some articles separately, and some articles are grouped together. When they are found grouped together, each word in the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord 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 words associated in the text with more limited words are taken to be restricted by implication to matters of the same limited character. The doctrine of ejusdem generis applies when (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category; (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; and (iv) there is no indication of a different legislative intent. General words must ordinarily bear their natural and larger meaning, and need not be confined "ej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dem 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) 41 STC 376). It is a requisite that there must be a distinct genus, which must comprise more than one species, before this rule can be applied. (State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan AIR 1955 SC 810. Interpretation ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis need not always be made when words showing particular classes are followed by general words. Before the general words can be so interpreted there must be a genus constituted or a category disclosed with reference to which the general words can and are intended to be restricted. (Jagdish Chander Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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, also form part of the same group of chemicals meant for plant protection. The genus of all these products, as one 'group', is plant protection, growth and regulation. Applying the rules of "noscitur a sociis" and ejusdem generics" it is evident that the "pesticides" and "insecticides" referred to in Entry 20 of Schedule IV are those used for plant protection, and do not bring within its ambit the subject goods which are "household insecticides". Entry 1 of Schedule 1 of the Vat Act relates to manually operated or animal driven agricultural i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt', 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 when it is apparent that a particular article belongs to a distinct category. The mere fact that certain articles are mentioned under the same heading in a statute does not automatically mean that they all constitute one commodity. The inclusion of several articles under the same heading may also be for reasons other than that the articles constitute one and the same thing. (Sukhu Ram Tamrakar117; Haji Abdul Shakoor v. State of Madras (1964) 15 STC 719 : (AIR 1964 SC 1729). In the present case, however, all the items in the first limb of Entry 20, are ana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 old antiquated notions of what are textiles and, therefore, it may sound a little strange to regard "dryer felts" as "textiles": But it must be remembered that the concept of "textiles" is not a static concept. It has, having regard to newly developing materials, methods, techniques and processes, a continually expanding content and new kinds of fabric may be invented which may legitimately, without doing any violence to the language, be regarded as "textiles"...." (emphasis supplied) In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. La Bela Products (1985) 59 STC 221 (Bom) the Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 meaning, and also an ordinary meaning according to common parlance, it is in the latter sense that the word must be held to have been used in a taxing Statute, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed by the Legislature. The reason is that the Legislature does "not suppose our merchants to be naturalists, or geologists, or botanists". (Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd.69; Prayag Chemical Works (1970) 25 STC 85). That word should be given the meaning attributed to it by people who daily deal with it as consumers or dealers in the market. The reason for this rule is tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illing 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 the ambit of the said entry; if the intention of the Legislature was to limit the scope of Entry 20 only to goods used for agricultural/horticulture purposes, the words 'in any form' would not have been used along with mosquito repellents; the contention that the legislature was conscious that mosquito repellents (which undisputably are used in households) were not insecticides, yet it thought that they should be excluded from the Entry is as absurd as exclusion of "paper and pencil" from insecticides; the specific exclusion of mosquito repellants shows that the intention of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill 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 necessary to understand what a "mosquito repellent" is. A repellent is defined as any chemically volatile substance that induces arthropods to move in the opposite direction from its source thereby preventing man and vector contact. Repellents may be formulated in various dosage forms like lotions, aerosols, sprays, cream oils and grease sticks. Different chemicals show different intrinsic protection and repellency time. Most repellents act by a common mechanism. They repel arthropods by providing vapors around the applied area. Volatile oils from plant sources possess this property and thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 verbatim, in the AP VAT Act, 2005, as Entry 20 in Schedule IV and was amended on 23.10.2005 w.e.f 01.09.2005; this matter had been decided by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Kumar Agencies 1990 (11) APSTJ 28 (STAT), a Full Bench of this Court, in Indo- National Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A. P. Hyderabad [2004] 136 STC 586 : [2001] 33 APSTJ 206, had held that the judgments of the Tribunal were binding on the sales tax authorities; however, it was contended on behalf of the revenue that, after the judgment of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court had delivered its judgment in So....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 amendment was necessitated in view of the Judgment of the Tribunal, in Kumar Agencies74 and Amitha Agencies (2002) 34 APSTJ 17 (STAT), that mosquito repellents were insecticides. The basis of these judgments was removed by the Legislature, by way of the aforesaid amendment, making it clear that mosquito repellents were not "insecticides" as referred to in Entry 20. While the legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect, it can pass an amending Act to remedy the defects pointed out by a court of law or on coming to know of it aliunde. In other words, a court's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 claim that the subject goods kill insects and are not repellants. Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary defines the word 'repellant' as "a substance that causes an insect or animal to turn away from it or reject it as food"; repellants may be in the form of gases (olfactory), liquids, or solids (gustatory); a Paper published by Literati Journal of Pharmaceutical Drug Deliver Technologies 01(02) 2015, 08-13, on "A Review on Plant based Mosquito Repellants" states that "a repellant is defined as any chemical volatile substance that induces arthropods to move in the opposite direction from its sourc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 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 been licensed;" Are the words "theatre or other place of public entertainment" in s. 33 of the Act of 1872 to be read subject to the ejusdem generis rule or not? We are satisfied, on the one hand, that, if they have to be read subject to the restriction of this rule, a fun fair of the kind involved in this case is not a kind of "public entertainment" of the same genus as a theatre. We are not, however, of opinion that the ejusdem generis rule applies to the words in question, and this for the following, among other, reasons:- (a) Words excepting a species from a genus are meaningless unless the species in quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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/insecticides used for plant protection which alone fall within the ambit of Entry 20 of the IV Schedule. The petitioners contention that it is classifiable also under Entry 20, even if it were to fall under the residuary entry, does not therefore merit acceptance. "Household insecticides" do not fall under Entry 20, and are liable to tax only under the residuary entry in Schedule V of the VAT Act. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that this Court, in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. (2012) 56 VST 1, held that Lizol (floor cleaner) and Harpic (toilette cleaner) are insecticides and pesticides, and are duly classifiable under Entry 20 of Schedule IV ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 British Railways Board v. Herrington 1972 (2) WLR 537). The decision of a Court is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio, and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Mistra Hegde AIR 1968 SC 647 Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495). In any event it is not even the petitioner's case that the subject goods are disinfectants/toilet cleaners/ bathroom cleaners. Reliance placed on Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. (2012) 56 VST 1 is therefore misplaced. Item 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt....