Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Janta Pesticides Store vs Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion ... on 15 January, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:2769]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 206/2017
M/s Janta Pesticides Store, 9-M Court Road, Sri Ganganagar
Through Its Partner Shri Sachin Mujral S, Resident Of 18-G
Block, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar
Commercial Taxes Department, Sri Ganganagar
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar for
Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
15/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in
question is no more res integra and has been decided by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 21.05.2024 in S.B.
Civil Revision Petition No.46/2013; M/s. Jagdama
Machinery Store vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti
Evasion, Sri Ganganagar and other connected matters.
Counsel for the respondent does not refute the above
submission.
2. The following substantial questions of law were framed by
the Court on 20.09.2017 while admitting the revision petition:-
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board has erred in law in
holding that the item "Power Sprayer" does not fall in
the category of exempted goods under Entry No.1 of
Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
and is exigible to tax @ 4% under Schedule-IV of the
Act of 2003?
(ii) Whether the description of goods "sprayers
including their parts and accessories" under Entry
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (2 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
No.1(a)(29) of the ordinary agricultural implements of
Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
would also include the "powers sprayers and its parts
and accessories"?"
3. In Revision Petition No.46/2013, the Court observed and
held as under:-
"These Civil (VAT) Revision Petitions have been
preferred by the petitioner - M/s Jagdamba Machinery
Store under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added
Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to "Act of 2003" for
short) against the judgment and order dated
11.12.2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer
(hereinafter referred to "learned Tax Board" in short) in
Appeal Nos.2330/2011/Sri Ganganagar, 2331/2011/Sri
Ganganagar, 2332/2011/Sri Ganganagar,
2333/2011/Sri Ganganagar.
Since the parties and issues in all these revision
petitions are common, they are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a
proprietor firm and is engaged in the business of sale of
agricultural implements. On 08.03.2010, the business
premises of the petitioner were surveyed by the
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Ward-I Anti
Evasion, Sri Ganganagar. During survey, it was found
that petitioner has made sale of "power sprayers" as
exempted goods but the same does not fall under any
of the entries provided under S.No.1 of Schedule-I of
the Act of 2003 and hence the power sprayers were
liable to be taxed at the rate of 4% under Schedule-IV
of the Act of 2003. Similarly, the parts and accessories
of the power sprayers would attract the rate of tax of
12.5%/14% under Schedule-V of the Act of 2003.
Pursuant to the proceedings initiated by respondent
Authority, the petitioner submitted its reply that power
sprayers and its parts and accessories were an
exempted product and it was contended that the word
"sprayer" provided under S.Nos.14 and 29 of the
ordinary agricultural implements under Schedule-I
would also include the "power sprayers". However, the
assessing authority while rejecting the contention of the
petitioner passed respective assessment orders in all
cases.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned assessing orders, the
petitioner preferred appeals before the Deputy
Commissioner (Appeals), Bikaner, (hereinafter referred
to 'appellate Authority' in short) which too were
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (3 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
rejected vide orders dated 29.08.2011. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred respective appeals before the
Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The learned Tax Board
found that all the transactions were recorded by the
petitioner in the books of accounts and, therefore, set
aside the penalty under Section 61(1) of the Act of
2003 but upheld the imposition of differential tax and
interest on the petitioner. Thus, the learned Tax Board
partly allowed the respective appeals of the petitioner
vide orders dated 11.12.2012. Against the impugned
orders dated 11.12.2012, the petitioner has preferred
these revision petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Schedule - I of the Act of 2003 provides for goods, the
sales or purchase of which, are exempt from tax.
Clause(a) of S.No.1 provides for 'ordinary agricultural
implements'. Item No.14 therein is sprayer, duster and
sprayer-cum-duster and item No.29 therein is sprayer
including their parts and accessories. Learned Tax
Board has held that since "power sprayers" have not
been included under any of the entries in Schedule-I of
the Act of 2003, the same are not exempt from
payment of tax, whereas if S.No.29 of Schedule-I is to
be seen then it specifically provides for sprayer
including their parts and accessories, therefore, it is
incorrect to state that "power sprayers" are not
included in the above category. Thus, the respondent
Authority has committed grave illegality in passing the
assessment orders and learned Tax Board has also not
considered this aspect of the matter. However, it is
submitted that earlier the "sprayer and drip irrigation
equipment" was mentioned at S.No.29 of the Schedule-
I which was substituted by the word "sprayer including
their parts and accessories" and S.No.30 was added in
the Schedule in 2006 vide notification dated
11.04.2006 by which the "parts and accessories specific
to the sprinkler system and drip irrigation system
including pipes which are used exclusively for sprinkler
and drip system" were exempt from payment of tax. It
is further submitted that the said notification dated
11.04.2006 was again amended by notification dated
09.03.2007 by which for the word "sprayer" under
S.No.29 "sprayer including their parts and accessories"
was substituted. Learned counsel submits that in view
of the above, it is clear from the series of Notifications
and the word "their" used in S.No.29 that all kinds of
sprayer including power sprayer are exempted from
payment of tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that learned Tax Board has not appreciated the
true purpose of the three categories of agricultural
implements provided under S.No.1 of Schedule-I of the
Act of 2003. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (4 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
passed by the learned assessing officer, learned
appellate authority as well as learned Tax Board may be
quashed and set aside. The questions framed in the
present revision petitions may be answered
affirmatively in favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the learned assessing officer, learned appellate
authority and learned Tax Board have not committed
any illegality while passing the orders impugned by
holding that power sprayers are liable to be taxed at
the rate of 4% under Schedule-IV of the Act of 2003
and the parts and accessories of the power sprayers
would attract rate of interest at 12.5%/14% under
Schedule-V of the Act of 2003. Learned counsel for the
respondent, while relying upon the Schedule -IV and
Schedule-V of the Act of 2003, submits that the
respondent authority has rightly passed the assessment
orders and the same have rightly been affirmed by the
learned appellate authority as well as learned Tax
Board. With these submissions, it is submitted that the
present revision petitions may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record as well as Schedule-I,
Schedule-IV and Schedule-V of the Act of 2003.
7. This Court vide orders dated 01.05.2013 and
29.04.2013 while admitting the revision petitions
framed following substantial questions of law for
adjudication of the present revision petitions:-
"1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the learned tax board has erred in law in holding that
the item "powers sprayer" does not falls under
Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
and is, therefore, taxable @ of 4% under Schedule-IV
of the above Act ?
2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the learned tax board has erred in law in not
appreciating the fact that item "sprayers including their
parts and accessories" under S.No.29 of the ordinary
agricultural implements of Schedule-I of the Rajasthan
Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would also include the
"powers sprayers and its parts and accessories"?
8. Before deciding the controversy at hand, it is
necessary to delve into the rigors to be applied while
interpreting a tax statute. In case of Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation
reported in MANU/OR/0076/1993 wherein the Orissa
High Court has discussed the interpretation of e taxing
statute and has held that Court must look squarely at
the words of the statute and interpret them. The
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (5 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
relevant part of para No.7 of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"7...while interpreting a taxing statute, equitable
considerations are entirely out of place. The court must
look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret
them. It must interpret a taxing statute, in the light of
what is clearly expressed ; it cannot imply anything
which is not expressed ; it cannot import provisions in
the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. One
has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for
any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is
no presumption as to a tax. Nothing has to be read in,
nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the
language used. In case of reasonable doubt, the
construction most beneficial to the subject is to be
adopted. But even so, the fundamental rule of
construction is the same for all statutes, whether fiscal
or otherwise. The underlying principle is that the
meaning and intention of a statute must be collected
from the plain and unambiguous expression used
therein rather than from any notions which may be
entertained by the court as to what is just or expedient.
The expressed intention must guide the court. If the
intention of the Legislature is clear and beyond doubt,
then the fact that the provisions could have been more
artistically drafted cannot be a ground to treat any part
of a provision as otiose. Though in recent times there
has been change from emphasis on grammatical
meaning to intention of the Legislature or purpose of
statute, yet if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or
any doubt arises as to the terms employed, the court
has a paramount duty to put upon the language of the
Legislature a rational meaning. In the past, the judges
and lawyers spoke of a golden rule by which statutes
were to be interpreted according to the grammatical
and ordinary sense of the word. They took the
grammatical or literal meaning unmindful of the
consequences. Even if such a meaning gave rise to
unjust results which the Legislature never intended, the
grammatical meaning alone was held to prevail. They
said that it would be for the Legislature to amend the
Act and not for the court to intervene by its innovation.
During the last several years, the golden rule has been
given a farewell. Now the words of the statute are
examined rationally. If the words are precise and cover
the situation at hand, there is no necessity to go any
further. The court expounds those words in the natural
and ordinary sense of the words. As indicated above, in
case of ambiguity and uncertainty, every word, every
Section and every provision is examined. The statute is
examined as a whole. The necessity which gave rise to
the Act is also examined. Mischiefs which the
Legislature intended to redress are looked at. The court
will not consider any provision out of the framework of
the statute. It will not view the provisions as abstract
principles separated from the motive force behind. The
provisions have to be considered in a manner so as to
ensure coherence and consistency within the law as a
whole and to avoid undesirable consequences. This
adventure, no doubt, enlarges the court's discretion as
to interpretation. But it does not imply power to the
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (6 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
court to substitute its own notions of legislative
intention. ..............."
9. Now, for deciding the aforesaid question No.1,
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
learned tax board has erred in law in holding that the
item "power sprayers" does not fall under Schedule-I of
the Act of 2003 and is, therefore, taxable @ of 4%
under Schedule-IV of the above Act, it would be apt to
reproduce relevant portions of Schedule-I and
Schedule-IV which read as under:-
SCHEDULE - I
[See sub-section (1) of section 8]
Goods, the Sales or Purchase of which are Exempt from Tax
S.No. Description of Goods
1 Agricultural implements manually
operated or animal driven or tractor or
power driven, spare parts and
accessories thereof , namely;
(a) Ordinary Agricultural implements : 1.
Hand Hoe (Khurpa or Khurpi), 2. Spade, 3.
Gandasa, 4. Pick i.e. khudali, 5. Axe, 6.
Khanta, 7. Belcha, 8. Patela, 9. Hand-
driven chaff cutters and their parts (except
bolts, nuts and springs), 10. Sickle, 11.
Beguri, 12. Hand-wheel hoe, 13.
Horticultural tools like budding, grafting
knife, secateur, pruning shear or hook,
hedge shear, sprinkler, rake, 14. Sprayer,
duster and sprayer-cum-duster, 15. Soil
injector, 16. Jandra, 17.Wheel barrow, 18.
Winnowing fan or winnower,19. Dibbler, 20.
Puddler, 21. Fertilizer seed broadcaster, 22.
Maize Sheller, 23. Groundnut decorticator,
24. Manure or seed screen, 25. Flame gun,
26. Seed grader, 27. Tasla (includes
Ghamela, Tagari and Parat, made of
ferrous metal, 27A. Crowbar (sabbal); 28.
Tangli., 29. Sprayer including their parts
and accessories, 30. Parts and
accessories specific to the sprinkler system
and drip irrigation system including pipes
which are used exclusively for sprinkler and
drip system (but not used for ordinary works
as carriage pipes).
2 .............
3 ............
SCHEDULE IV
[See section 4]
Goods Taxable at 5%
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (7 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
S.No. Description of Goods Rate of
Tax %
1. Agricultural implements other than mentioned in 5
Schedule-I.
2. Omitted w.e.f. 9-3-10
3. All intangible goods like copyright, patent, REP license
etc.
4. All kinds of bricks other than mentioned in Schedule I,
asphaltic roofing and refractory monolithic
5. All metal castings and manhole covers made of cast
iron casting.
6. sewing thread
7. All utensils including pressure cookers, pan, and cutlery
but excluding utensils made of precious metals and
stainless steel.
8. Omitted w.e.f. 07-03-2016
9. Appalam, vadam and vathal
10. Arecanut powder and betel nut
11. Article made of rolled gold and imitation jewellary
12. Atukulu
13. Bamboo
10. A bare perusal of the Schedule-I of the Act of
2003 makes it amply clear that there is no specific
word like "power sprayers" in Schedule-I. S. No.1 of
Schedule-IV specifically states that the same is taxable.
Apparently, the goods power sprayer do not fall under
Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, is taxable
under Schedule-IV of the above Act.
11. As regard the question No.2, whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case, learned tax board has
erred in law in not appreciating the fact that item
"sprayers including their parts and accessories" under
S.No.29 of the ordinary agricultural implements of
Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
would also include the "power sprayers" the same is
also decided against the petitioner as "sprayers
including their parts and accessories" cannot be said to
be the same as "power sprayers and its parts and
accessories". For the present controversy, Schedule-V
is also relevant which reproduced as under :-
Schedule V
[See section 4]
Goods Taxable at *["14%]
Description of Goods Rate of Tax %
Goods not covered in any other Schedule *[14%]
under the Act or under any notification
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (8 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
issued under section 4 of the Act
Schedule V for the existing expression "12.5" where ever occurring the
ssion"14" substituted vide Notification No.F.12(84)FD/Tax/2009-14 : 8-7-
2009 with immediate effect
12. Schedule-V provides for the goods taxable which
are not covered in any other schedule under the Act or
under any notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act. Apparently, the goods in question i.e. "power
sprayers" is not specifically included in any Schedule
and, therefore, the goods "power sprayers" is taxable
as per Schedule-IV and the parts and accessories
thereof are taxable under Schedule-V.
13. The learned Tax Board also while dealing with the
Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 held as under:
ÞmDr vuqlwph ds vuqlkj ekuo pkfyr] i'kq pkfyr ;k Vz~sDVj ;k 'kfDr
pkfyr izfof"V esa vafdr uketn d`f"k midj.kksa dks djeqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k
x;k gS A mi'khZ"kd (a) ds rgr lk/kkj.k d`f"k midj.k gSa] ftuesa dze
la[;k 14 o 29 ij Lizs;j] MLVj rFkk Lizs;j de MLVj dk rFkk muds
Lis;j ikV~Zl o ,lsljht dks vafdr fd;k gS] ysfdu vihykFkkZ }kjk ikoj
Liz;s j o muds ikV~Zl dk fodz; fd;k x;k gSA ikoj pkfyr d`f"k
midj.k izfof"V ds mi'khZ"kd (c) ds rgr of.kZr gS] ftuesa
vihykFkhZ }kjk fodz; fd;s tkus okyk ikoj Lizs;j 'kkfey ugha gSA d`f"k
midj.kksa dh lwph Namely ls izkjEHk gksrh gS] ftldk vk'k; gS fd
of.kZr midj.kksa ds vykok dksbZ Hkh midj.k d`f"k midj.kksa ds :i esa bl
izfof"V ds rgr djeqDr ugha gSA (1981) 47 ,l-Vh-lh- 337 esa ekuuh;
enzkl mPp U;k;ky; us namely 'kCn ds vFkZ dks fuUu izdkj of.kZr
fd;k gS%&
"Consequently there can be no doubt about the
meaning of the word "namely, that is, it is restrictive in
the sense that the general expression which precedes
the word "namely"is confined to the itemized
expressions that follow the word "namely".
Consequently the meaning of the word "namely"can
only be restrictive and can be neither illustrative nor
expansive.
,slh fLFkfr esa ikoj Lizs;j osV vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph& IV dh dze
la[;k 1 vuqlkj 4 izfr'kr ls dj ;ksX; gS rFkk ikVZ~l
o ,lsljht vuqlwph-V ds vuqlkj 12-5 izfr'kr dh nj ls
dj ;ksX; gSA"
14. Thus, in light of the above discussion, I am of the
opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed
any illegality while passing the impugned orders and,
therefore, the present revision petitions are dismissed
accordingly. Stay petitions also stand disposed of."
[2025:RJ-JD:2769] (9 of 9) [CR-206/2017]
4. In view of the ratio in M/s. Jagdamba Machinery Store
(supra), the present revision petition is also dismissed on the
same terms. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
10-praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
