Case: M/S Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. State Of Bihar

whether the article vacuum cleaner could be included within the Entry 81 of the Notification dated 26.12.1977 issued under Section 12 by the respondents. 9. Entry 81 of the said notification reads as follows:- “81. Electrical goods, instrument, apparatus and appliances including electric fans and lighting bulbs, electric earthware and porcelain and all other accessories excluding electric motor, dry cell batteries, torch, torch bulbs, exhaust fans, air circulators, and spare parts and accessories, electric heaters of all varieties.” 10. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted before us that particular article, namely, vacuum cleaner, which is the article dealt with by the appellant in the course of its business cannot be included within the ambit and scope of Entry 81 in view of the fact that the said article is not mentioned specifically within the aforesaid Entry. In order to reinforce his arguments, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel also relied upon the subsequent Notification which is issued by the respondents on 26.7.2000. He has drawn our attention to the contents of the said Notification and particularly to serial no. 247 where vacuum cleaner is specifically mentioned with the rate of sales tax payable @ 12%. It is submitted by him that since in the subsequent Notification in 2000, vacuum cleaner has been specifically stated under serial no. 247 specifying the rate of sales tax at 12%, it should be assumed that the aforesaid vacuum cleaner having not been specifically mentioned in the earlier Notification under Entry 81, would be liable for the purpose of tax at 8% being an unspecified good. We have considered the said submissions in the light of the records. The Entry 81, which we have extracted above, provides that electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances would have to be levied 12% tax effective from 1.4.1982. However, when it states of electrical goods, the same appears to us to be an inclusive description as it emphasises on the word `including electrical fans and lighting bulbs, etc. and again it excludes from its purview electric motor, dry cell batteries, etc. 11. A reference to Section 12 of the Act would also make the position clear for Section 12 says in the proviso that the State Government can issue a notification fixing higher rate than eight percentum by specifying such goods or class of goods or description of goods. Therefore, by issuing a notification under Section 12, a higher rate than of 8% could be levied by the State Government on a class of articles of goods or goods specifically mentioned therein. The aforesaid position would be more explicit when we look to the Entries 116 and 127 of the same Notification of 1977 wherein by the Entry 116, articles like refrigerators, air- conditioners, air-coolers and air-conditioning plants, etc. have been taken out from the items “electrical goods” under Entry 81 by levying higher rate of tax. 12. That the vacuum cleaner dealt with by the appellant is an electrical good, there is no dispute raised for in the Special Leave Petition itself it is stated by the Appellant that the vacuum cleaner is a machinery which is run by electricity. Therefore, it is an agreed and uniform case of the parties that vacuum cleaner is an electrical good. The said vacuum cleaner is not excluded from the purview and ambit of Entry 81 in any manner as is apparent from a bare reading of the contents of Entry 81. 13. We are concerned with the assessment years prior to 2000 and, therefore, the Notification issued on 26.7.2000 shall have no relevance or application to the facts of the present case. 14. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that since vacuum cleaner is not specifically included within the Entry 81, therefore, it should be deemed to be excluded. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention in view of the fact that none of any electrical goods, instruments, apparatus, which is included in the said Entry is specifically mentioned and if that interpretation is accepted, all electrical goods would have to be excluded because they are not specifically mentioned therein. That could not be the intention of the framers of the Notification while exercising the powers under the subordinate legislation. If we also accept such an interpretation, in our opinion, entire Entry 81 would be rendered otiose. 15. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in The Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce & Industry and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Etc. Etc. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 550 , wherein it is laid down in para 7 that taxing statutes are to be strictly construed and that nothing could be added to what is stated in the statute itself. We agree and accept the aforesaid principles of law laid down by this Court. That is a settled position of law, but according to us, the said decision in no way helps the Appellant in view of the reasoning given by us for the findings arrived at by us. So far the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (119) STC 460 (Pat.) is concerned, the same is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same relates to a case of re- opening of assessment on the ground of change of opinion and therefore, the said case also has no application at all. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association, a Company having its registered office through its Deputy Secretary and Mr. Badrinath Durvasula having his place of business v. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Ors. reported in 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom.) also has no application to the facts of the present case. 16. We have given our reasons for arriving at our findings and in our considered opinion, the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in The Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce & Industry and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Etc. Etc. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 550 , wherein it is laid down in para 7 that taxing statutes are to be strictly construed and that nothing could be added to what is stated in the statute itself. We agree and accept the aforesaid principles of law laid down by this Court. That is a settled position of law, but according to us, the said decision in no way helps the Appellant in view of the reasoning given by us for the findings arrived at by us. So far the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (119) STC 460 (Pat.) is concerned, the same is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same relates to a case of re- opening of assessment on the ground of change of opinion and therefore, the said case also has no application at all. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association, a Company having its registered office through its Deputy Secretary and Mr. Badrinath Durvasula having his place of business v. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Ors. reported in 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom.) also has no application to the facts of the present case.