Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs United Industrial Machinery
1991 Latest Caselaw 299 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) This is a reference u/S 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, which has been made to this court by the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(2) The respondent dealer carries on business, inter alia, in parts of industrial machinery and plants. One of the items which is sold by the dealer, is suction hose pipe. The case of the dealer was that this item was chargeable @ 5% vide entry No. 27 of Notification No. 4 (73)/74-Fin. (G) dated dt. 21.10.75, An application was filed before the Assessing Authority (AA) The A.A. however, seemed to be of the opinion that the said item was chargeable @ 7% under Entry No. 29 of another Notification also dated 21.10 75 being No. F. 4 (73)/74/-Fin. (C). The dealer, before any assessment was made, filed in application u/S 49 of the Act before the Commissioner, of Sales Tax for determination, as to under which entry, the aforesaid item was taxable.

(3) Vide order dated 4.3.77 the Comm., S.T. came to the conclusion that the said item was taxable under Entry No. 29 @ 7%. The dealer filed an appeal before the g T. Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 26.7.77, came to the conclusion that the item was taxable @ 5% under Entry No. 27.

(4) The Commissioner than filed an application for stating the case to this Court. The Tribunal stated the case and has referred the following two questions to this Court : "(i) Whether on the facts the learned Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that entry No. 27 of the second Notification dated 21.10.1975 is independent of entry No. 29 of the First Notification dated 21.10.1975 referred to above (ii) Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sales of "suction hose pipes" are taxable at the reduced rate of tax of 5 paise in the rupee under the Second Notification dated 21.10.1975?"

(5) In our opinion there is no difficulty in construing the two entries. It is well settled that such entries in the Schedule should be so construed so that the intention of the legislature is clearly brought out. Similar contention was raised before the Tribunal, who dealt with the same in the following words : "In appeal before me it is urged that the view taken by the learned Commissioner is erroneous and liable to be se( aside. Entry No. 27 quoted above does not by itself mention that the items mentioned in that entry would attract tax at five paise in the rupee only when they are made of stainless steel. From that entry, if it is read in usual and ordinary manner, it would appear that the levy of tax at five paise in the rupee has not been made dependent on the material of which the items mentioned in that entry are made. 1 am also of the view that the entry does not audit of any doubt or ambiguity it would not be proper to add any words than etc. and involve thereform meaning which may be said to carry out the supposed intentions of the legislature. To be sure, the intention is to be gathered from the words used. The reorganized principle of interpretation of the statute as I understand it, is that where the words of statute are clear and explicit effect must be given to it whatever may be the consequence and the courts would not be justified in depriving of their plain meaning in order to give effect to some intention which the courts like, to the legislature other provisions of the statute. Notification in which the relevant entry No. 27 is found, is self contained and does not depend for its interpretation on the entries made in another notification on or Schedule. Entry No. 27 to my mind should be construed as it stands at present and if this is so done, it would be clear that safety razor blades and surgical instruments or parts of industrial machinery and plant whether they are made of stainless steel or not are liable to tax at five paise in a rupee only. If the legislature intended that this entry should be confined only to the items which are made of stainless steel, there would have been no difficulty in adding appropriate words to that entry. In the absence of such additions, we cannot, on our own, add these words and hold that the same referred to items made of stainless steel only."

(6) We are in respectful agreement with what has been observed by the Tribunal aforesaid. There is, in our opinion, no warrant for reading into Entry No. 27, the words which are not only absent but which are not necessary to be supplied, to give any meaning to an entry. If Entry No. 27 had been ambiguous, then it could possibly have been argued that some more words should be added to it to give it a meaning. But as the entry stands, it is clear that all types of safety razor blades, surgical instruments and parts of industrial machinery and plant are liable to be taxed @ 5%.

(7) It is contended by learned counsel for the Deptt. that Entry No. 27 has been inserted because stainless steel razor blades, surgical instruments and parts of industrial machinery and plant have been excluded from Entry No. 29 of the first notification. He, therefore, contends that because these items made only from stainless steel have been excluded from Entry No. 29 of the first notification, therefore, it is only those items which are made from stainless steel which should be regarded as being included in Entry No. 27 of the second notification.

(8) We find no justification in this contention. It is true that safety razor blades, surgical instruments and parts of industrial machinery and plant, all of which are made from stainless steel, have been excluded from the operation of Entry No. 29 of the first notification. It is further correct that these goods, so excluded from Entry No. 29 have been included in Entry No. 27, but that does not mean that any words of limitation or any qualifying words are to be added to Entry No. 27 of the second notification. No principles of statutory construction would allow us to do so. As we have already observed, if there had been any ambiguity in understanding the import and effect of Entry No. 27 of the second notification on then, possibly, to could have seen other entries in this and the other list. But when Entry No. 27 of the second notification is clear and unambiguous, there is no reason as to why it should not be given its full affect. All types of safety razor blades, all types of surgical instruments and all types of parts of machinery an plant have been taxed at 5% as per the said Entry 27 of the second notification.

(9) We, therefore, answer the two questions of law referred to this Court in the affirmative and in favor of the dealer.