SREE DURGA DISTRIBUTORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Sree Durga Distributors is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 31-5-2006 passed by the authority' for Clarification and Advance ruling under s. 60 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax act of 2003 (for short 'the KVAT Act' ). The appellant-dealer is engaged in the activity of trading in Animal Feed such as 'dog Feed' sold under the brand name 'pedigree' and 'cat feed" sold under the brand name 'whiskas'. The animal feed sold by the appellant are purchased from the registered dealers situated w:ithin the State of Karnataka and it would be second sale in the State of Karnataka. The gaods sold by the appellant are exclusively used as daily food to cats and dogs. The appellant did not collect any tax under the provisions of the Act, on the sales of 'dog Feed' and 'cat Feed' effected by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the said goods fell under Entry No. 8 of the First Schedule apepended to the Act, for the periods commencing from 1-4-2005 and up to 6-6-2005 and under Entry No. 5 of the First Schedule appended to the Act on and with effect from 7-6-2005 and as such is exempt from payment of tax under the provisions of the Act. The assessing officer was of the view that the 'dog feed' and 'cat Feed' dealt with by the appellant would not fall under Entry 8 of the First schedule appended to the Act. for the periods from 1-4-2005 and up to 6-6-2005 and under entry No. 5 of the First Schedule appended to the Act on and with effect from 7-6-2005. He was of the view that the said goods are liable to be taxed at the rate of 12. 5% treating the same as non-scheduled goods. The appellant in the circumstances approached the authority under Section 60 of the Act seeking for clarification in the matter. After hearing, the clarification authority ruled that 'dog feed' and 'cat Feed' do not fall under Entry 8 of the First Schedule or Entry 5 of the revised first Schedule with effect from 7-6-2005 and the said goods are liable to be taxed under 12. 5%. Appellant aggrieved by this order is before us.

(2.) SRI. Prasad. learned Counsel for the appellant would take us through the entries to contend that Dog Feed and Cat Feed do form and do fit into the entries in the case on hand. According to him, Dog Feed and Cat Feed are nothing but animal feed and the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to use the word 'namely' which would mean that the entry is to be understood as illustrative and not expansive. He would rely on certain judgments.

(3.) PER contra, Smt. Sujatha, learned Government advocate supports the order and irr addition she would say that the Dog Feed and cat Feed cannot come within the Entry 1. She equally relies on a new judgments.