Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Texonic Instruments vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 21 September, 2023
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9735 OF 2011
M/S. TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS ..…………...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ANR. ………….....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9754 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6056 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32603 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6057 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32609 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6058 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32606 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6059 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32607 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6060 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32608 OF 2011)
Signature Not Verified
WITH
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2023.09.25
17:04:36 IST
Reason: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6061 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 31100 OF 2011)
2
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6062 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32605 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6063 OF 2023
(@ SLP(C) NO(S). 32604 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10775 OF 2023
ORDER
Leave granted in the listed special leave petitions.
This Court find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment which hold that installation cables, outlet or connection modules, patch cords, patch panels, network cards, fibre optic cables etc. are not covered in Entry C.20 (ii)(b) of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
The view expressed, conforms to the judgment of this Court, in the cases of Collector of Central Excise v. Grasim Industries:
(2005) 3 SCR 466 and Castrol India Ltd. v. C.C.E.: (2005) 2 SCR 414, which had ruled that the phrase “that is to say” are to be given a restrictive meaning, rather than expanding the scope of the preceding words. In Castrol India (supra), it was held as follows:
-
“In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition, Vol. 5 at page 2753, we find “That is to say”, is the commencement of an ancillary clause, which explains the meaning of the principal clause. It has the following properties (1) it must not be contrary to the principal clause; (2) it must neither increase nor dimnish it; (3) but where the physical clause is general in terms it may restrict it, see this explained with many examples, Stukeley v. Butler Hob, 1971”. The quotation, 3 the expression “that is to say” is employed to make clear and fix the meaning of what is to be explained or defined. Such words are not used as a rule, to amplify a meaning while removing a possible doubt for which purpose the word “includes” is generally employed. In unusual cases, depending upon the context of the words “that is to say”, this expression may be followed by illustrative instances.
The expression “that is to say” in sub-heading 2710.60 has to be interpreted to be words of limitation. The fact that sub-heading 2710.60 contains an exclusion clause goes to show that there may be other lubricating oils which may fall in the residuary heading “others”.
Having regard to these facts, the Court is satisfied that the final decision classifying all the items in question, as falling in Part ‘E’ of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is correct.
The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………….J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] ………………………………………….J. [ARAVIND KUMAR] NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023.
4
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9753/2011
M/S. TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ANR. Respondent(s)
([ PART HEARD BY : HON'BLE S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND HON'BLE ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ. ] [ GROUP MATTER ] ) WITH C.A. No. 9754/2011 (IV-A) SLP(C) No. 32603/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 32609/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 32606/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 32607/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 32608/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 31100/2011 (IV-A) ) SLP(C) No. 32605/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) SLP(C) No. 32604/2011 (IV-A) ( FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2011 IA No. 1/2011 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) C.A. No. 10775/2011 (IV-A) Date : 21-09-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharath, Adv.
Ms. Amritha Chandramouli, Adv. Mr. Rahul Vijay Kumar, Adv.
5Mr. Shivshankar G., Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar Nair, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.
Ms. Shreyash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv.
Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv.
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted in the listed special leave petitions.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (BEENA JOLLY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)