AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was inspected. It was noticed that the respondent has charged and collected the VAT @ 4% on the sale of aforesaid goods. The Prescribed Authority passed the re-assessment order under Section 39(1) of the Act, levying tax @ 12.5% on the sale of these goods. 3. The respondent preferred a Writ Petition instead of preferring an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the ground that the reassessment was done on the instructions of the Commissioner and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in preferring a statutory appeal. The High Court accepting the said submission directed the respondent/Company to approach the Tribunal and accordingly, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both parties, considering the judgments on which reliance was placed held that the goods manufactured and sold by the respondent/Company are admittedly Insecticides containing the chemicals, which are capable of killing the mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, etc. Mosquito Repellants are totally different products as they drive away mosquitoes, etc. Therefore, the goods manufactured by the respondent are Insecticides falling under Entry 23 of Sched....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id serial number, taking note of the presence of "Allethrin" in the repellant, excluded the mosquito repellants from Sl.No.23. It is in that context, it became necessary for the Legislature to substitute that entry with an exclusion clause excluding the mosquito repellants from entry No.23 and therefore, he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not call for interference. 7. Sl.No.23, as it stands today, has a checkered history. When the Act was introduced for the first time, the entry was at Sl.No.16 in the Third Schedule. It read as under: "16. Chemical fertilizers and chemical fertilizer mixtures; including gypsum Insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides, fungicides, weedicides, herbicides, plant regulators and plant growth nutrients." Subsequently, it was substituted by Act No.27 of 2005 as under: "23. Chemical fertilizers, chemical fertilizer mixtures; bio fertilizers, micro nutrients, gypsum, plant growth promoters and regulators; insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides, fungicides, weedicides, herbicides". 8. Again, it was substituted by Act No.5 of 2008 as under: "23. Chemical fertilizers, chemical fert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re was that, as the words used in the said entry are clear and unambiguous, it does not include mosquito repellant. But, when this Court in the aforesaid Ashok Agencies' case (supra) ruled out that, because of the presence of "allethrin" in the mosquito repellant, it falls within the definition of "insecticide", it became necessary for the Legislature to make their intention clear. Therefore, they substituted said entry by the latest entry specifically excluding the said mosquito coils and mosquito repellant. In the process, they also included phenyl, liquid toilet cleaners and floor cleaners. They also added the words "and the like" used for nonagricultural or non-horticultural purposes. Therefore, the entire object of the substituted provision is to exclude the mosquito repellant from the ambit of the word "insecticide", if it is used for non-agricultural or non-horticultural purposes. 10. The words "and the like" was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited -vs- State of Karnataka reported in (2000) Vol.119 Page 112 wherein it was held as under: "Normally speaking, the courts while giving a meaning to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is not open to question. Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance then there is no difficulty for statutory classification under a particular entry". 13. 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 in a taxing statute the word must be held to have been used, unless contrary intention is clearly expressed by the legislature, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. -vs- State of Haryana reported in (1978) STC Vol.42 Page 433. 14. The Apex Court held in the case of Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. -vs- Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow reported in (1981) STC Vol.48 page 254 as under: "It is well settled rule that 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. If an expression is capable of a wider meaning as well as a narrower meaning the question whether the wider or the narrower meaning should be g....