The Supreme Court in India has held that glass bangles and plastic bangles would be clearly covered by entry 30 and entry 54 of the notification dated April 30, 1992 issued by the Karnataka Government…
The Supreme Court in India has held that glass bangles and plastic bangles would be clearly covered by entry 30 and entry 54 of the notification dated April 30, 1992 issued by the Karnataka Government. The ruling was given by a three-judge Bench comprising Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar, Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Mr. Justice S.S.M. Quadri, while dismissing a batch of appeals in the case of Brindavan Bangles Stores and others versus the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another. The appeals were filed by the dealers in glass and plastic bangles. The question which arose in these appeals was with regard to the validity of imposition of entry tax on glass and plastic bangles under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. The State Government, on April 30, 1992, notified various commodities for the purpose of levy of entry tax. One of the bangle merchants sought clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as to whether “glass bangles and plastic bangles” would be covered by entry 30 and entry 54 of the notification dated April 30, 1992 and were subject to entry tax at the rate of 2%. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, on July 21, 1992, clarified that glass and plastic bangles would be covered by entry 30 and entry 54 of the notification and were subject to entry tax at the rate of 2%. Consequent upon the said notification, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes made an assessment order for 1993-94 and demanded entry tax on bangles. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellants preferred various writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court. A single judge of the High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petitions by his common judgement and order dated March 15, 1995 and quashed the assessment orders made against them. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the single judge, the respondents filed writ appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court, which allowed the writ appeals and held that the glass and plastic bangles were covered by entry 30 and entry 54, respectively of the notification dated April 30, 1992 and were subject to entry tax at the rate of 2%. Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the judgement and order of the single judge. Hence, the appeals before the apex court. Chapter 2 of the Entry Tax Act deals with the levy of tax. Section 3(1) provides that there shall be levied and collected tax on entry of any goods specified in the first schedule into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at such rates which may be prescribed by the State Government by issuing a notification. Different dates could be specified in respect of different goods or different classes of goods for different local areas. In exercise of this power, the State Government issued the notification dated April 30, 1992. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, said that the expression articles of glass in entry 30 would include the bangles, for example, articles made of glass. A bare reading of entry 30 would make it clear that the articles mentioned therein are subject to payment of entry tax. “The word “and“ used in entry 30 would unmistakably indicate that the glass sheets (raw material), as well as all articles made of glass, would be subject to payment of entry tax. The same analogy has to be extended to entry 54”, the judges observed. On reading entry 30 and entry 54, the judges were of the opinion that there is neither any ambiguity nor do they lack any clarity as pleaded on behalf of the appellants. The legislature intended to levy and collect entry tax on the articles mentioned in both the entries. The words used therein are of wider import and clearly indicate that all articles made of glass or made from all kinds of or all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene and like materials are subjected to payment of entry tax, the judges held, while confirming the judgment under challenge.