Kerala High Court
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Haji V.K. Hameed And Co. on 18 September, 1980
Author: V. Balakrishna Eradi
Bench: V. Balakrishna Eradi
JUDGMENT Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.
1. The State is the revision petitioner before us and the challenge is directed against the correctness of the decision rendered by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in Tribunal Appeal No. 503 of 1977 holding that turpentine does not fall within the scope of entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963-for short the Act-and hence the turnover of the assessee relating to the sale of turpentine is taxable at the general rate.
2. Entry 27 in the First Schedule to the Act reads :
Paints, colours, lacquers and varnishes.
We are totally unable to see how turpentine can be said to fall within any of the aforesaid categories described in this entry. Turpentine is, no doubt, used as a solvent thinner or dissolvent in paints and varnishes but it cannot by itself be applied to other substances for the purposes of imparting colour or shine.
3. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Colour Chem. Ltd. [1968] 22 S.T.C. 90, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had occasion to consider the scope of an identical entry contained in Schedule C in entry 39 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act (51 of 1959), and it was held that :
The term 'paints' occurring in entry 39 should be construed ejusdem generis with the words 'lacquers and varnishes' occurring in the said entry. So construed, entry 39 is intended to apply to liquid substances, which are capable of being used by themselves for applying to other substances for the purpose of imparting colour or shine as the case may be.
We are in respectful agreement with the said interpretation placed by the Bombay High Court on the identical entry contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
4. Counsel for the revenue strongly urged before us that by virtue of the notification issued by the Government as per G. 0. Ms. No. 634/62/Rev. dated 23rd July, 1962, under Section 25 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (corresponding to Section 60 of the present Act), Government have ordered that turpentine shall be deemed to come under the scope of entry No. 47 of Schedule I to the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, which was in terms identical with the present entry No. 27 of the First Schedule to the Act. It is now well-settled that in the guise of exercising the power conferred by the statute for removal of difficulties in the working of the provisions of enactment, the Government cannot add to or modify the enacted provisions of the statute. The ambit of the words used in entry 27 of the First Schedule to the Act has to be gathered from the language used therein by the legislature. There is no difficulty in the matter of interpretation of the concerned entry since the language employed by the legislature is quite plain and unambiguous. Even in cases where there is any difficulty in the matter of interpretation of an entry, such difficulty will have to be resolved by the court and any notification issued by the State Government concerning the matter will not bind the Tribunal or the court in the matter of determining the true meaning and scope of the entry contained in the schedule to the statute.
5. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that turpentine will not fall within the scope of entry 27 of the First Schedule to the Act, and the turnover relating to the said article is taxable only at the general rate. The revision is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.