Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Vikas ... vs United India Machinery Agencies on 15 April, 1991
Bench: B Kirpal, D Jain
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal and D.K. Jain, JJ.
1. This is a reference under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, which has been made to this Court by the Sales 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 at 5 per cent vide entry No. 27 of Notification No. F.4(73)/74-Fin.(G) dated 21st October, 1975. An application was filed before the assessing authority. The assessing authority, however, seemed to be of the opinion that the said item was chargeable at 7 per cent under entry No. 29 of another Notification, also dated 21st October, 1975, being No. F.4(73)/74-Fin.(G). The dealer, before any assessment was made, filed an application under section 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 4th March, 1977, the Commissioner of Sales Tax came to the conclusion that the said item was taxable under entry No. 29 at 7 per cent. The dealer filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 26th July, 1977 came to the conclusion that the item was taxable at 5 per cent under entry No. 27.
4. The Commissioner then 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 21st October, 1975, is independent of entry No. 29 of the first Notification dated 21st October, 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 21st October, 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 set 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 the 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. I am also of the view that the entry does not admit of any doubt or ambiguity. It would not be proper to add any words then, etc., and involve there from a 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 recognised principle of interpretation of the statute as I understand it, is that where the words of the 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 from 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 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 at 5 per cent.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the department 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 then, possibly, we 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 effect. All types of safety razor blades, all types of surgical instruments and all types of parts of machinery and plant have been taxed at 5 per cent 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.
10. There will be no order as to costs.
11. References answered in the affirmative.
