KASTURBA HOSPITAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the assessment period 1987-88, the sales tax authorities brought to tax the turnover relating to orthetics, prosthetics and rehabilitation aids on the ground that the benefit of the notification issued by the Government under section 8a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act exempting the tax payable under the Act in respect of artificial limbs could not be extended to the petitioner. All that the assessing authority stated was that the exemption is applicable to prosthetics and not to orthetics or rehabilitation aids. The matter was carried in appeal. The appellate authority referred to the etymological meaning of the expressions "orthetics", "prosthetics" and rehabilitation aids" and concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to such relief. The matter was carried in second appeal, without any success. The Tribunal also adopted the dictionary meaning of the expressions used and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the object of the notification issued in exempting the tax payable under the Act in respect of artificial limbs should be borne in mind and should not be given a narrow meaning. He submitted that the whole object of the notification is to allow exemption in respect of such aids that are used in rendering the limbs useful as otherwise, such limbs cannot be used at all. Thereby, when the limbs could be used only with the necessary aids, such aids must be deemed to be artificially helping the limbs and therefore, they are artificial limbs.

(3.) THE notification issued under section 8a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act exempts payment of tax in respect of "artificial limbs". Prosthetics is understood as a medical term for fitment of the artificial limbs to patients who have lost their limbs physically either due to injury, disease or some congenital defect. Such patients may have a limb, but such limb cannot be used although such limb is not amputated totally or partially, i. e. , the disability is reduced by reason of the attachments fitted to those limbs and such a procedure is known as orthetics. If it is so, we find it very difficult to accept the stand of the department that, that cannot be characterised as artificial limbs. In such a case, the limb was useless but for the fitment made to it. That fitment renders the limb useful or enhance the use of the limb which was otherwise capable of minimal use. Therefore, it must be understood that such artificial fitment itself is a kind of limb coming within the scope of the notification exempting the payment of tax under the Act. The approach of the department is unimaginative and unrealistic and therefore, we cannot accept the same.