M/s Janta Pesticides Store V. Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar Commercial Taxes Department

CR/207/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Janta Pesticides Store, represented by its partner Shri Sachin Mujral, challenging the classification of 'power sprayers' under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner argued that 'power sprayers' should be classified under Schedule-I, which exempts certain agricultural implements from tax, rather than Schedule-IV, which imposes a 4% tax. The court referenced several previous rulings and examined the specific wording of the relevant schedules in the Act. The court concluded that 'power sprayers' are not explicitly mentioned in Schedule-I and thus fall under Schedule-IV, making them taxable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798289 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation
• Laws Referred To: Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH BALOT
• Keywords: Power sprayers; Power sprayers; Schedule-I; Schedule-I; Schedule IV; Tax board interpretation; Tax board interpretation; Taxable goods; Taxable goods
• Section: 8; 4

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JD:34563] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 207/2017 M/s Janta Pesticides Store, 9-M Court Road, Sri Ganganagar Through Its Partner Shri Sachin Mujral S, Resident Of 18-G Block, Sri Ganganagar. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar Commercial Taxes Department, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Balot for Mr. Lokesh Mathur For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 21/08/2024 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue has been decided by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2024 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.208/2017 and by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 21.05.2024 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.46/2013, 43/2013, 44/2013 & 45/2013 and the revision petitions. 2. This Court vide orders dated 01.05.2013 and 29.04.2013 while admitting the abovementioned revision petitions framed following substantial questions of law for adjudication of the present revision petitions:- “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tax board has erred in law in holding that the item “powers sprayer” does not falls under Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [2024:RJ-JD:34563] (2 of 7) [CR-207/2017] and is, therefore, taxable @ of 4% under Schedule-IV of the above Act ? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tax board has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that item “sprayers including their parts and accessories” under S. No.29 of the ordinary agricultural implements of Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would also include the “powers sprayers and its parts and accessories”? 3. Before deciding the controversy at hand, it is necessary to delve into the rigors to be applied while interpreting a tax statute. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation reported in MANU/OR/0076/1993 wherein the Orissa High Court has discussed the interpretation of e-taxing statute and has held that Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. The relevant part of para No.7 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “7...while interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute, in the light of what is clearly expressed ; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed ; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. One has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing has to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. In case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted. But even so, the fundamental rule of construction is the same for all statutes, whether fiscal or otherwise. The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected [2024:RJ-JD:34563] (3 of 7) [CR-207/2017] from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is just or expedient. The expressed intention must guide the court. If the intention of the Legislature is clear and beyond doubt, then the fact that the provisions could have been more artistically drafted cannot be a ground to treat any part of a provision as otiose. Though in recent times there has been change from emphasis on grammatical meaning to intention of the Legislature or purpose of statute, yet if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, the court has a paramount duty to put upon the language of the Legislature a rational meaning. In the past, the judges and lawyers spoke of a golden rule by which statutes were to be interpreted according to the grammatical and ordinary sense of the word. They took the grammatical or literal meaning unmindful of the consequences. Even if such a meaning gave rise to unjust results which the Legislature never intended, the grammatical meaning alone was held to prevail. They said that it would be for the Legislature to amend the Act and not for the court to intervene by its innovation. During the last several years, the golden rule has been given a farewell. Now the words of the statute are examined rationally. If the words are precise and cover the situation at hand, there is no necessity to go any further. The court expounds those words in the natural and ordinary sense of the words. As indicated above, in case of ambiguity and uncertainty, every word, every Section and every provision is examined. The statute is examined as a whole. The necessity which gave rise to the Act is also examined. Mischiefs which the Legislature intended to redress are looked at. The court will not consider any provision out of the framework of the statute. It will not view the provisions as abstract principles separated from the motive force behind. The provisions have to be considered in a manner so as to ensure coherence [2024:RJ-JD:34563] (4 of 7) [CR-207/2017] and consistency within the law as a whole and to avoid undesirable consequences. This adventure, no doubt, enlarges the court's discretion as to interpretation. But it does not imply power to the court to substitute its own notions of legislative intention................” 4. Now, for deciding the aforesaid question No.1, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tax board has erred in law in holding that the item “power sprayers” does not fall under Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 and is, therefore, taxable @ of 4% under Schedule-IV of the above Act, it would be apt to reproduce relevant portions of Schedule-I and Schedule-IV which read as under:- SCHEDULE – I [See sub-section (1) of section 8] Goods, the Sales or Purchase of which are Exempt from Tax S.No. Description of Goods 1 2 Agricultural implements manually operated or animal driven or tractor or power driven, spare parts and accessories thereof, namely; (a) Ordinary Agricultural implements : 1. Hand Hoe (Khurpa or Khurpi),2. Spade, 3. Gandasa, 4. Pick i.e. khudali, 5. Axe, 6. Khanta, 7. Belcha, 8.Patela, 9. Hand- driven chaff cutters and their parts (except bolts, nuts andsprings), 10. Sickle, 11. Beguri, 12. Hand-wheel hoe, 13. Horticultural tools like budding, grafting knife, secateur, pruning shear or hook, hedgeshear, sprinkler, rake, 14. Sprayer, duster and sprayer-cum-duster, 15.Soil injector, 16. Jandra, 17.Wheel barrow, 18. Winnowing fan or winnower,19. Dibbler, 20. Puddler, 21. Fertilizer seed broadcaster, 22.Maize Sheller, 23. Groundnut decorticator, 24. Manure or seed screen,25. Flame gun, 26. Seed grader, 27. Tasla (includes Ghamela, Tagari and Parat, made of ferrous metal, 27A. Crowbar (sabbal); 28. Tangli., 29.Sprayer including their parts and accessories, 30. Parts and accessories specific to the sprinkler system and drip irrigation system including pipes which are used exclusively for sprinkler and drip system(but not used for ordinary works as carriage pipes). [2024:RJ-JD:34563] (5 of 7) [CR-207/2017] 2 …………. 3 …………. SCHEDULE IV [See section 4] Goods Taxable at 5% S. No. Description of Goods Rate of Tax % 1 2 3 1. Agricultural implements other than mentioned in Schedule-I. 5 2. Omitted w.e.f. 9-3-10 3. All intangible goods like copyright, patent, REP license etc. 4. All kinds of bricks other than mentioned in Schedule I, asphaltic roofing and refractory monolithic 5. All metal castings and manhole covers made of cast iron casting. 6. sewing thread 7. All utensils including pressure cookers, pan, and cutlery but excluding utensils made of precious metals and stainless steel 8. Omitted w.e.f. 07-03-2016 9. Appalam, vadam and vathal 10. Arecanut powder and betel nut 11. Article made of rolled gold and imitation jewellary 12. Atukulu 13. Bamboo 5. A bare perusal of the Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 makes it amply clear that there is no specific word like “power sprayers” in Schedule-I. S. No.1 of Schedule-IV specifically states that the same is taxable. Apparently, the goods power sprayer do not fall under Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, is taxable under Schedule-IV of the above Act. [2024:RJ-JD:34563] (6 of 7) [CR-207/2017] 6. As regard the question No.2, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned tax board has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that item “sprayers including their parts and accessories” under S.No.29 of the ordinary agricultural implements of Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act,2003 would also include the “power sprayers” the same is also decided against the petitioner as “sprayers including their parts and accessories” cannot be said to be the same as “power sprayers and its parts and accessories”. For the present controversy, Schedule-V is also relevant which reproduced as under:- Schedule V [See section 4] Goods Taxable at *[“14%] Description of goods Rate of Tax% 2 3 Goods not covered in any other Schedule under the Act or under any notification issued under section 4 of the Act *[14%] Schedule V for the existing expression “12.5” where ever occurring the ssion“14”substituted vide Notification No.F.12(84)FD/Tax/2009-14 : 8- 7-2009 with immediate effect 7. Schedule-V provides for the goods taxable which are not covered in any other schedule under the Act or under any notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Apparently, the goods in question i.e. “power sprayers” is not specifically included in any Schedule and, therefore, the goods “power sprayers” is taxable as per Schedule-IV and the parts and accessories thereof are taxable under Schedule-V.13.The learned Tax Board also while dealing with the Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 held as under: ^^mDr vuqlwph ds vuqlkj ekuo pkfyr] i”kq pkfyr ;k VªSDVj ;k “kfDr pkfyr izfof’V esa vafdr uketn —f’k [2024:RJ-JD:34563] (7 of 7) [CR-207/2017] midj.kksa dks djeqDr ?kksf’kr fd;k x;k gSA mi”khZ’kd ¼a½ ds rgr lk/kkj.k —f’k midj.k gSa] ftuesa Øe la[;k 14 o 29 ij Lizs;j] MLVj rFkk Lizs;j de MLVj dk rFkk muds Lis;j ikV~Zl o ,lsljht dks vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu vihykFkkZ }kjk ikoj Lizs;j o muds ikV~Zl dk foØ; fd;k x;k gSA ikoj pkfyr —f’k midj.k izfof’V ds mi”kh’kZd ¼c½ ds rgr of.kZr gS] ftuesa vihykFkhZ }kjk foØ; fd;s tkus okyk ikoj Lizs;j “kkfey ugha gSA —f’k midj.kksa dh lwph Namely ls izkjaHk gksrh gS] ftldk vk”k; gS fd of.kZr midj.kksa ds vykok dksbZ Hkh midj.k —f’k midj.kksa ds :i esa bl izfof’V ds rgr djeqDr ugha gSA ¼1981½ 47 ,l-Vh-lh- 337 esa ekuuh; enzkl mPp U;k;ky; us namely “kCn ds vFkZ dks fuEu izdkj of.kZr fd;k gS%& \"Consequently there can be no doubt about the meaning of the word \"namely, that is, it is restrictive in the sense that the general expression which precedes the word \"namely\"is confined to the itemized expressions that follow the word \"namely\". Consequently the meaning of the word \"namely\"can only be restrictive and can be neither illustrative nor expansive. ,slh fLFkfr esa ikoj Lizs;j osV vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph&iv dh Øe la[;k 1 ds vuqlkj 4 izfr”kr ls dj ;ksX; gS rFkk ikV~Zl o ,lsljht vuqlwph&v ds vuqlkj 12-5 izfr”kr dh nj ls dj ;ksX; gSA** 8. Thus, in light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay petition also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 29-Rashi/- "