Semantic Analysis by spaCy
N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv
Decided On : Jan-04-1991
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat', (int) 1 => 'Coal', (int) 2 => 'Nalidar Coal', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'leco' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '29', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '47', (int) 6 => '351', (int) 7 => '9 to 11', (int) 8 => '29', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '5.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'W.P. No', (int) 1 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 2 => 'M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'the Madhya Pradesh High Court', (int) 5 => 'Coal & Kutti Farm', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 8 => 'Legislature', (int) 9 => 'leco' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13054', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => '1981', (int) 4 => '1975', (int) 5 => '28th March, 1978' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fifth Schedule' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fourth Schedule' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.T.R.P. Nos' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '381370', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 5(4) and 8 ', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petitions Nos. 13054 of 1987 and 12656 to 12658 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'N. Ratanchand Jain', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'casenote' => ' - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 49/1988]Sections 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) &19; [R.B. Naik, J] Sanction for prosecution -Accused was officer of Co-operative Department - Complainant alleged that the officer-accused demanded money to register an association -Complainant lodged with Lokayukta -Trap laid - Subsequently accused was charge-sheeted - Prosecution applied for sanction to prosecute the officers but refused by authorities -subsequently delinquent ceased to hold office Trial Court held accused was not a public servant on date of taking cognizance as such no sanction necessary - Held, Prosecuting agency applied for sanction and sanctioning authority refused-This order was not challenged. Thus refusal has reached finality. Absence of sanction and want of sanction are two different issues. As long as Section 19 is on statute book sanction is a must. Trial Court has no power to take cognizance. Order passed by Trial Court is an apparent error. Accused was discharged of the offence. - Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' B.P. Gandhi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. D. Bhoopathy and ;H.L. Dattu, High Court Government Pleaders', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since identical question is involved in all these writ petitions they are taken up together. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts are stated with reference to W.P. No. 13054 of 1987. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> ('the Act'). The petitioner buys leco from M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner it is a trade name and it is ordinarily understood as charcoal used as domestic fuel. The petitioner sells leco for domestic use and to hotels. All these years leco was treated as charcoal and appropriate exemption was being granted under item 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The goods enumerated in the Fifth Schedule to the Act are exempted from taxation under section 8 of the Act. Item 29 reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Fire-wood or charcoal when sold for domestic use, except to hotels.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner was served with a notice proposing levy of tax on the sales of leco treating it as coal falling under section 5(4) of the Act, that is, by treating it as a declared goods mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Item 1 of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Coal including coke in all its forms but excluding charcoal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since charcoal is exempted, naturally, the petitioner wants to understand leco as charcoal, while the Revenue wants to levy tax on leco by treating it as coal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Revenue relies on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Punjab Coal & Kutti Farm [1981] 47 STC 351. In the said decision Nalidar Coal was held to be coal for the purpose of levying sales tax. Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. The scientific process by which an article is obtained loses significance in this context. A Bench of this Court in S.T.R.P. Nos. 9 to 11 of the 1975 decided on 28th March, 1978 had assumed that leco was charcoal. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench only to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner therein had sold the quantity of leco in question for domestic use as to enable him to claim the exemption under item 29 of the Fifty Schedule. The assumptions made by the Division Bench which is the foundation for the aforesaid decision will have to be respected. If the Legislature thinks otherwise the law will have to be amended to clarify the matter. I do not think that I can ignore the above decision and venture upon an investigation again to see whether leco is coal or charcoal. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, leco will have to be held as charcoal and if so the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Consequently, all these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Writ petitions allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1992]85STC470(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '381370' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat', (int) 1 => 'Coal', (int) 2 => 'Nalidar Coal', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'leco' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '29', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '47', (int) 6 => '351', (int) 7 => '9 to 11', (int) 8 => '29', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '5.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'W.P. No', (int) 1 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 2 => 'M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'the Madhya Pradesh High Court', (int) 5 => 'Coal & Kutti Farm', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 8 => 'Legislature', (int) 9 => 'leco' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13054', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => '1981', (int) 4 => '1975', (int) 5 => '28th March, 1978' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fifth Schedule' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fourth Schedule' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.T.R.P. Nos' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '381370', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 5(4) and 8 ', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petitions Nos. 13054 of 1987 and 12656 to 12658 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'N. Ratanchand Jain', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'casenote' => ' - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 49/1988]Sections 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) &19; [R.B. Naik, J] Sanction for prosecution -Accused was officer of Co-operative Department - Complainant alleged that the officer-accused demanded money to register an association -Complainant lodged with Lokayukta -Trap laid - Subsequently accused was charge-sheeted - Prosecution applied for sanction to prosecute the officers but refused by authorities -subsequently delinquent ceased to hold office Trial Court held accused was not a public servant on date of taking cognizance as such no sanction necessary - Held, Prosecuting agency applied for sanction and sanctioning authority refused-This order was not challenged. Thus refusal has reached finality. Absence of sanction and want of sanction are two different issues. As long as Section 19 is on statute book sanction is a must. Trial Court has no power to take cognizance. Order passed by Trial Court is an apparent error. Accused was discharged of the offence. - Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' B.P. Gandhi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. D. Bhoopathy and ;H.L. Dattu, High Court Government Pleaders', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since identical question is involved in all these writ petitions they are taken up together. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts are stated with reference to W.P. No. 13054 of 1987. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> ('the Act'). The petitioner buys leco from M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner it is a trade name and it is ordinarily understood as charcoal used as domestic fuel. The petitioner sells leco for domestic use and to hotels. All these years leco was treated as charcoal and appropriate exemption was being granted under item 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The goods enumerated in the Fifth Schedule to the Act are exempted from taxation under section 8 of the Act. Item 29 reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Fire-wood or charcoal when sold for domestic use, except to hotels.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner was served with a notice proposing levy of tax on the sales of leco treating it as coal falling under section 5(4) of the Act, that is, by treating it as a declared goods mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Item 1 of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Coal including coke in all its forms but excluding charcoal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since charcoal is exempted, naturally, the petitioner wants to understand leco as charcoal, while the Revenue wants to levy tax on leco by treating it as coal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Revenue relies on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Punjab Coal & Kutti Farm [1981] 47 STC 351. In the said decision Nalidar Coal was held to be coal for the purpose of levying sales tax. Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. The scientific process by which an article is obtained loses significance in this context. A Bench of this Court in S.T.R.P. Nos. 9 to 11 of the 1975 decided on 28th March, 1978 had assumed that leco was charcoal. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench only to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner therein had sold the quantity of leco in question for domestic use as to enable him to claim the exemption under item 29 of the Fifty Schedule. The assumptions made by the Division Bench which is the foundation for the aforesaid decision will have to be respected. If the Legislature thinks otherwise the law will have to be amended to clarify the matter. I do not think that I can ignore the above decision and venture upon an investigation again to see whether leco is coal or charcoal. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, leco will have to be held as charcoal and if so the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Consequently, all these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Writ petitions allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1992]85STC470(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '381370' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat', (int) 1 => 'Coal', (int) 2 => 'Nalidar Coal', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'leco' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '29', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '47', (int) 6 => '351', (int) 7 => '9 to 11', (int) 8 => '29', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '5.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'W.P. No', (int) 1 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 2 => 'M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'the Madhya Pradesh High Court', (int) 5 => 'Coal & Kutti Farm', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 8 => 'Legislature', (int) 9 => 'leco' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13054', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => '1981', (int) 4 => '1975', (int) 5 => '28th March, 1978' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fifth Schedule' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fourth Schedule' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.T.R.P. Nos' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '381370', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 5(4) and 8 ', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petitions Nos. 13054 of 1987 and 12656 to 12658 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'N. Ratanchand Jain', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'casenote' => ' - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 49/1988]Sections 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) &19; [R.B. Naik, J] Sanction for prosecution -Accused was officer of Co-operative Department - Complainant alleged that the officer-accused demanded money to register an association -Complainant lodged with Lokayukta -Trap laid - Subsequently accused was charge-sheeted - Prosecution applied for sanction to prosecute the officers but refused by authorities -subsequently delinquent ceased to hold office Trial Court held accused was not a public servant on date of taking cognizance as such no sanction necessary - Held, Prosecuting agency applied for sanction and sanctioning authority refused-This order was not challenged. Thus refusal has reached finality. Absence of sanction and want of sanction are two different issues. As long as Section 19 is on statute book sanction is a must. Trial Court has no power to take cognizance. Order passed by Trial Court is an apparent error. Accused was discharged of the offence. - Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' B.P. Gandhi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. D. Bhoopathy and ;H.L. Dattu, High Court Government Pleaders', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since identical question is involved in all these writ petitions they are taken up together. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts are stated with reference to W.P. No. 13054 of 1987. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> ('the Act'). The petitioner buys leco from M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner it is a trade name and it is ordinarily understood as charcoal used as domestic fuel. The petitioner sells leco for domestic use and to hotels. All these years leco was treated as charcoal and appropriate exemption was being granted under item 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The goods enumerated in the Fifth Schedule to the Act are exempted from taxation under section 8 of the Act. Item 29 reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Fire-wood or charcoal when sold for domestic use, except to hotels.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner was served with a notice proposing levy of tax on the sales of leco treating it as coal falling under section 5(4) of the Act, that is, by treating it as a declared goods mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Item 1 of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Coal including coke in all its forms but excluding charcoal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since charcoal is exempted, naturally, the petitioner wants to understand leco as charcoal, while the Revenue wants to levy tax on leco by treating it as coal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Revenue relies on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Punjab Coal & Kutti Farm [1981] 47 STC 351. In the said decision Nalidar Coal was held to be coal for the purpose of levying sales tax. Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. The scientific process by which an article is obtained loses significance in this context. A Bench of this Court in S.T.R.P. Nos. 9 to 11 of the 1975 decided on 28th March, 1978 had assumed that leco was charcoal. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench only to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner therein had sold the quantity of leco in question for domestic use as to enable him to claim the exemption under item 29 of the Fifty Schedule. The assumptions made by the Division Bench which is the foundation for the aforesaid decision will have to be respected. If the Legislature thinks otherwise the law will have to be amended to clarify the matter. I do not think that I can ignore the above decision and venture upon an investigation again to see whether leco is coal or charcoal. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, leco will have to be held as charcoal and if so the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Consequently, all these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Writ petitions allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1992]85STC470(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '381370' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 8' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat', (int) 1 => 'Coal', (int) 2 => 'Nalidar Coal', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'leco' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '29', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '47', (int) 6 => '351', (int) 7 => '9 to 11', (int) 8 => '29', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '5.' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'W.P. No', (int) 1 => 'the Karnataka Sales Tax Act', (int) 2 => 'M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited', (int) 3 => 'leco', (int) 4 => 'the Madhya Pradesh High Court', (int) 5 => 'Coal & Kutti Farm', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 8 => 'Legislature', (int) 9 => 'leco' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '13054', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => '1981', (int) 4 => '1975', (int) 5 => '28th March, 1978' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fifth Schedule' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Fourth Schedule' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.T.R.P. Nos' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '381370', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> - Sections 5(4) and 8 ', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petitions Nos. 13054 of 1987 and 12656 to 12658 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'N. Ratanchand Jain', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'N. Ratanchand JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'casenote' => ' - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 49/1988]Sections 7,13(1)(d), 13(2) &19; [R.B. Naik, J] Sanction for prosecution -Accused was officer of Co-operative Department - Complainant alleged that the officer-accused demanded money to register an association -Complainant lodged with Lokayukta -Trap laid - Subsequently accused was charge-sheeted - Prosecution applied for sanction to prosecute the officers but refused by authorities -subsequently delinquent ceased to hold office Trial Court held accused was not a public servant on date of taking cognizance as such no sanction necessary - Held, Prosecuting agency applied for sanction and sanctioning authority refused-This order was not challenged. Thus refusal has reached finality. Absence of sanction and want of sanction are two different issues. As long as Section 19 is on statute book sanction is a must. Trial Court has no power to take cognizance. Order passed by Trial Court is an apparent error. Accused was discharged of the offence. - Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' B.P. Gandhi, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Smt. D. Bhoopathy and ;H.L. Dattu, High Court Government Pleaders', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since identical question is involved in all these writ petitions they are taken up together. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts are stated with reference to W.P. No. 13054 of 1987. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the <a href="/act/62040/karnataka-sales-tax-act-1957-complete-act">Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957</a> ('the Act'). The petitioner buys leco from M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner it is a trade name and it is ordinarily understood as charcoal used as domestic fuel. The petitioner sells leco for domestic use and to hotels. All these years leco was treated as charcoal and appropriate exemption was being granted under item 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The goods enumerated in the Fifth Schedule to the Act are exempted from taxation under section 8 of the Act. Item 29 reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Fire-wood or charcoal when sold for domestic use, except to hotels.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner was served with a notice proposing levy of tax on the sales of leco treating it as coal falling under section 5(4) of the Act, that is, by treating it as a declared goods mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Item 1 of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Coal including coke in all its forms but excluding charcoal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since charcoal is exempted, naturally, the petitioner wants to understand leco as charcoal, while the Revenue wants to levy tax on leco by treating it as coal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Revenue relies on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Punjab Coal & Kutti Farm [1981] 47 STC 351. In the said decision Nalidar Coal was held to be coal for the purpose of levying sales tax. Now it is well-known that while interpreting items for the purpose of taxation the court is not concerned with the scientific or the technical meaning of the terms, but to their popular meaning and the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. The scientific process by which an article is obtained loses significance in this context. A Bench of this Court in S.T.R.P. Nos. 9 to 11 of the 1975 decided on 28th March, 1978 had assumed that leco was charcoal. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench only to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner therein had sold the quantity of leco in question for domestic use as to enable him to claim the exemption under item 29 of the Fifty Schedule. The assumptions made by the Division Bench which is the foundation for the aforesaid decision will have to be respected. If the Legislature thinks otherwise the law will have to be amended to clarify the matter. I do not think that I can ignore the above decision and venture upon an investigation again to see whether leco is coal or charcoal. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, leco will have to be held as charcoal and if so the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Consequently, all these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Writ petitions allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '[1992]85STC470(Kar)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Iv', 'sub' => 'Sales Tax', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '381370' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: section 8
PERSON: K. Shivashankar Bhat, Coal, Nalidar Coal, leco, leco
CARDINAL: 2., 29, 29, 1, 3., 47, 351, 9 to 11, 29, 4., 5.
ORG: W.P. No, the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, leco, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Coal & Kutti Farm, Court, the Division Bench, Legislature, leco
DATE: 13054, 1987, 1957, 1981, 1975, 28th March, 1978
FAC: the Fifth Schedule
LOC: the Fourth Schedule
GPE: S.T.R.P. Nos