BRINDAVAN BANGLE STORES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES XIII ADDL CIRCLE BANGALORE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, the question raised is, whether the circular issued by the Commissioner that plastic bangles and glass bangles attract tax under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ("the Act", for short) at the rate of 2 per cent with effect from May 1, 1992, as per serial numbers 30 and 54 of the list appended to the Government Notification No. FD-CET92(1) dated April 30, 1992. Entry 30 reads as "glass sheets and all articles made of glass". Entry 54 reads as "Plastic sheets, granules and articles made from all kinds and all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene, polyestrene and lime materials". Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the decisions in [1976] 37 STC 33 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Janata Medical Stores); [1983] 53 STC 264 (AP) [App.] (Shankar Bangle Stores v. State of Andhra Pradesh); [1994] 92 STC 450 (Ker) [Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. K. Ummul Kulsu] and AIR1986 SC 1730 , 1986 (10 )ECC1 (SC ), 1986 (25 )ELT473 (SC ), 1986 (2 )SCALE15 , (1986 )3 SCC480 , [1986 ]3 SCR126 , [1986 ]63 STC322 (SC ) [Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise], contended that the expression "glass sheets and all articles made of glass" or "plastic sheets and articles made from all kinds and forms of plastic" would not include bangles made of glass or plastic.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader appearing for the department submitted that the relevant entries cover all articles made of glass or plastic and therefore include bangles also made of glass or plastic.

(3.) The Legislature in the present case has not merely used the expression "all articles made of glass or plastic" either in entry 30 or entry 54 to be brought to taxation. In each case, it has used the expression glass sheets or plastic sheets and the articles made of glass or plastic. Therefore, if the Legislature intended to cover glass sheets also in the expression all articles made of glass or articles made from all kinds and forms of plastic, it would not have used the expression plastic sheets or glass sheets separately. When the Legislature itself uses certain expressions, the same must be given some definite meaning or the context in which those expressions are used must be understood in the correct perspective. If as contended for the department, all articles made of glass or plastic would include every kind of article made of glass or plastic, then there was no need to have used the expression glass sheets and plastic sheets also in entry 30 or entry 54. On the other hand, the expression used in entries 30 and 54 would clearly indicate that all articles made of glass or all articles made from all kinds and all forms of plastic would be as such relatable to the same meaning as glass sheets or plastic sheets and that alone would have been included. This is based on the principle noscitur a sociis. It is stated that the meaning of a word is judged by the company it keeps. In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statues, the meaning of this expression is stated as that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense and they take their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to less general. The same rule was extended to interpret the words and phrases by the Supreme Court in AIR1960 SC 610 , (1960 )62 BOMLR553 , (1960 )I LLJ251 SC , [1960 ]2 SCR866 (State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha). In that view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the Legislature in the present case did not intend to include plastic bangles and glass bangles in entry 30 and entry 54 for, by no stretch of imagination can those commodities be associated with or comparable with glass sheets which give the key to the meaning of the expression "all articles made of glass" or "all articles made of plastic". Hence, the view taken by the Commissioner at annexure E is wholly inapt. The same shall stand quashed. The assessments made so far as the petitioners are concerned in regard to the levy of tax on glass bangles and plastic bangles shall stand quashed. In other respects, the assessments shall remain undisturbed.