D SHIVANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in these appeals is regarding interpretation of entry 29 of the Fifth Schedule under which firewood or charcoal when sold for domestic use (except to hotels) have been exempted. The claim of the assessee was not accepted by the assessing authority. The appeal preferred before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), was allowed, where it was found that in later two years the assessing authority has himself given the exemption and a finding that firewood is sold to Central prison was given.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellate authority unless the sale is made to the hotels, the tax could not be levied and since the sales were effected to Central prison, sales tax levied was set aside observing that the firewood and charcoal sold to domestic consumer or domestic use will not be liable to tax.

(3.) THE revising authority has taken altogether different view and observed that supplies are made to HAL and MPM Ltd. He was of the view that the supply to these public undertakings was for use in their canteens, which prepares the eatables and drinks for the workers of the company. It was observed that the intention of the Legislature is to give exemption only for domestic use. Reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax AIR1978 SC 897 , (1978 )1 scc636 , [1978 ]3 SCR98 , [1978 ]41 STC409 (SC ), wherein it was observed that plain natural meaning of language used must prevail. No words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so in order to prevent a provision from unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. Observations made in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur AIR1975 SC 1039 , (1975 )4 SCC22 , [1975 ]3 SCR743 , [1975 ]35 stc413 (SC ), 1975 (7 )UJ267 (SC ) were also taken into consideration where it was held that where the language is plain and unambiguous, the court cannot supply any casus omissus on the basis of what it thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity.