Commissioner of Sales Tax M.S.Mumbai v. M/s.Raymond Limited
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Bharat Mehta AGP for the applicant. None for the respondent. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 28th August 2009 P.C:-
#1. Reference was made at the instance of Revenue on the following question
#1. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and true and correct interpretation of entry B-I(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with item No.(ix) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Tribunal is holding that the goods “Engineering files” are the 2 declared goods, and in allowing the set off under rule 41E of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, for use of iron and steel in the manufacture of “Engineering files”?
#2. The learned Tribunal after considering entry B 6(ix) of the Bombay Sales Act 1959 as also section 14(iv)(ix) of the Central Sales Tax 1956 has recorded a finding that “tool” falls within declared goods and therefore respondent assessee was entitled to claim set off.
#3. At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant Revenue, learned counsel seeks to contend that the expression “tool” must be read in conjunction with “alloy and special steel” and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be supported.
#4. Entry (ix) read as under:- “tool, alloy and special steels of any of the above categories” Similarly, section 14(iv)(ix) of the Central Sales Tax 1956 reads as under:- “tool, alloy and special steels of any of the above categories” The comma after the word “tool” must mean that the expression is to be read independent of the words ‘alloy and special steels of any of the 3 above categories as all of them fall under the heading “iron and steel”. As long as a tool is made of iron and steel it would fall within that entry including tools. It is also not possible to accept that we must apply the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting the aforesaid entries as the word “tool” is independent of alloy and special steel in any of the above categories and do not take colour from each other. The argument therefore advanced on behalf of the Revenue has to be rejected.
#5. In these circumstances, in our opinion, there is no merit in the question raised. Accordingly, reference rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (F.I. REBELLO, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — s. 14; Bombay Sales Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 28 Aug 2009. The bench was F I REBELLO, D G KARNIK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.