Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. Padma Engineering Works - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/722136
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnOct-06-1986
Case NumberT.R.C. Nos. 114 and 115 of 1986
Judge K.S. Paripoornan and; T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, JJ.
Reported in[1990]78STC49(Ker)
ActsKerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Sections 5
AppellantDeputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes)
RespondentPadma Engineering Works
Advocates:The Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - counsel submitted that the word 'machinery' used in entry 141 of the first schedule to the kerala general sales tax act is of very wide import and should take in the manufacturing machineries of the assessee as well.k.s. paripoornan, j.1. the revenue is the revision-petitioner in both these tax revision cases. the same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. the respondent-assessee is manufacturing machineries. they are vertical and horizontal handsaws and wood lathes. for the assessment years, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the sales turnover relating to the said goods was assessed at 8 per cent as falling under entry 141 of the first schedule to the kerala general sales tax act, 1963. entry 141 of the first schedule to the kerala general sales tax act, is as follows :sl. no.description of goodspoint of levyrate of tax141machinery and transport equipments (other than those specificallymentioned in the schedule)at the point of first sale in the state by a dealer who isliable to tax under section 582. the objections raised by the assessee to the effect that the goods cannot be taxed under entry 141 aforesaid was negatived by the assessing authority as also by the first appellate authority. the tribunal upheld the said objection. the revenue has filed the above two tax revision cases assailing the common order passed by the appellate tribunal for both the years, t.a. nos. 446 and 447 of 1983, dated december 20, 1985.3. we heard counsel for the revenue, mr. karunakaran nambiar. counsel submitted that the word 'machinery' used in entry 141 of the first schedule to the kerala general sales tax act is of very wide import and should take in the manufacturing machineries of the assessee as well. it was submitted that the appellate tribunal erred in holding that the word 'machinery' used in entry 141 of the first schedule should be related to transport equipments. we see no force in this submission. the word 'machinery' occurring in entry 141 of the first schedule to the kerala general sales tax act should be construed in the context and the collocation of words. it is settled law that the word 'machinery' will derive its content and colour from the words 'transport equipments'. so construed, we have no doubt in our mind that the word 'machinery' occurring in entry 141 of the first schedule should be related to only 'transport equipments'. the machinery sold by the assessee in the instant case are not admittedly transport equipments. we are of the view that they will not fall under entry 141 of the first schedule. the appellate tribunal was justified in holding so.4. there is no error either in the reasoning or in the conclusion of the appellate tribunal. these two tax revision cases are without merit. we dismiss the revisions in limine.
Judgment:

K.S. Paripoornan, J.

1. The Revenue is the revision-petitioner in both these tax revision cases. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. The respondent-assessee is manufacturing machineries. They are vertical and horizontal handsaws and wood lathes. For the assessment years, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the sales turnover relating to the said goods was assessed at 8 per cent as falling under entry 141 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Entry 141 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, is as follows :

Sl. No.

Description of goods

point of levy

Rate of tax

141

Machinery and transport equipments (other than those specificallymentioned in the schedule)

At the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who isliable to tax under section 5

8

2. The objections raised by the assessee to the effect that the goods cannot be taxed under entry 141 aforesaid was negatived by the assessing authority as also by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal upheld the said objection. The Revenue has filed the above two tax revision cases assailing the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for both the years, T.A. Nos. 446 and 447 of 1983, dated December 20, 1985.

3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Karunakaran Nambiar. Counsel submitted that the word 'machinery' used in entry 141 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is of very wide import and should take in the manufacturing machineries of the assessee as well. It was submitted that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the word 'machinery' used in entry 141 of the First Schedule should be related to transport equipments. We see no force in this submission. The word 'machinery' occurring in entry 141 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act should be construed in the context and the collocation of words. It is settled law that the word 'machinery' will derive its content and colour from the words 'transport equipments'. So construed, we have no doubt in our mind that the word 'machinery' occurring in entry 141 of the First Schedule should be related to only 'transport equipments'. The machinery sold by the assessee in the instant case are not admittedly transport equipments. We are of the view that they will not fall under entry 141 of the First Schedule. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so.

4. There is no error either in the reasoning or in the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. These two tax revision cases are without merit. We dismiss the revisions in limine.