TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nos.955/2016, 741/2016 and 334/2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders passed by the authorities under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, 'the KTEG Act'). The CRP Nos.584/2023, 586/2023, 588/2023 and 590/2023 are directed against the common order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') in STA Nos.948/2016, 950/2016, 951/2016 and 949/2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders passed by the authorities under the KTEG Act. These petitions were admitted to examine the following questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right in holding that Hydraulic Oil cannot be treated as a schedule commodity for levy of entry tax, as per list of Petroleum Products at Sl.No.1(1)(viii)(a) of the Table in the Notification dated 30.03.2002? (ii) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right that the requirement of Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act is fulfilled? (iii) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... First Schedule. It was further contended that Hydraulic Oil is not specifically enumerated either in Entry 67 or in the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and, therefore, cannot be brought within the charging provision by implication. 5. Reliance was placed on the below decisions to contend that commodities not specifically covered by the statutory entry are not amenable to levy of entry tax. It was also urged that the requirements of Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act were not fulfilled and that the levy is consequently unsustainable. 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgment:- * Carl Bechem Lubricants (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Karnataka and another by order dated 17.04.2013 passed in TAET No.7/2011 and TAET Nos.8-9/2011; * M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated 16.12.2020 passed in TEAT No.10/2014; * M/s. Merlyn Hydrocarbons (P) Ltd., v. State of Karnataka and another by order dated 21.10.2022 passed in ST. Appeal Nos.76,78 & 930 and 931/2016; * M/s. Hyva India (P) Ltd., v. Additional Commissioner of Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnover, turnover assessed at a lower rate or cases where exemption or deduction has been wrongly granted. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the material on record, has recorded a finding that the conditions contemplated under Section 6(1) stood satisfied. No jurisdictional infirmity or patent illegality was demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the said finding in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The contention therefore does not merit acceptance. 13. The issue essentially turns upon the interpretation of Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act and the Notification dated 30.03.2002. Entry 67 deals with petroleum products and includes lubricating oil, transformer oil, brake fluid or clutch fluid, bitumen, tar and others, while specifically excluding aviation fuel, LPG, kerosene and naphtha for use in the manufacture of fertilizers. 14. The scope and ambit of the expression "and others" occurring in Entry 67 is well settled in Indian Aluminium Company's case (supra) the Apex Court has categorically held that the words "and others" occurring after the specified petroleum products would take within their fold petroleum products other than those expressly e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute from the ratio laid down in Hyva India's case (supra), which specifically deals with Hydraulic Oil and its taxability under Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act. On the contrary, the distinction drawn in Carl Bechem's case (supra) between a raw material and a finished consumable product reinforces the reasoning adopted in Hyva India's case (supra). 20. In view of the forgoing discussions, the present case stands on a fundamentally different footing. In Hyva India's case (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that Hydraulic Oil is a consumable and not a raw material and that no product emerges from its use. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in distinguishing Carl Bechem's case (supra) and in holding that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 21. Further, the Tribunal has rightly distinguished the decisions in Kluber Lubrication's case (supra) and Merlyn Hydrocarbons on the ground that the commodities involved therein were different and the issues arising therein were not identical to the issue relating to Hydraulic Oil. The distinction drawn by the Tribunal is both legally sustainable. 22.....