SARASWATHI CHEMICALS VIJAYAWADA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for decision in these tax revision cases is whether the 'printing ink' in which the petitioner deals falls within Entry 45 of First Schedule of the APGST Act or not ?

(2.) The petitioner in both the TRCs is the same viz., M/s. Saraswathi Chemicals. The petitioner is the manufacturer of newspapers printing ink meant for newspaper printing only. The Assessing Authority treated such printing ink as unclassified goods and subjected the disputed turnovers to tax at the rate of 5%. The Deputy Commissioner revised the orders of the Assessing Authority and subjected the disputed turnovers at the higher rate of 9% by treating the 'Printing Ink' as falling under Entry 45 of First Schedule. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in revision has preferred appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ' the Tribunal'). The Tribunal affirmed the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence these TRCs against that opinion.

(3.) Sri Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contended that that since there is no 'comma between the words 'Lithographic; and 'Printing' in Entry 45, a reasonable construction would be that Entry 45 embraces only two kinds of goods viz., 'Lithographic Printing Ink' and 'Duplicating ink' and the view taken by the Tribunal that Entry 45 comprehends three kinds of goods viz., 'Lithographic Ink', 'Printing Ink', and 'Duplicating Ink' is totally erroneous and against the well-settled principles of interpretation of statutes. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurusahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1062, would maintain that the opinion of the Tribunal tantamounts to amending Entry 45 of the APGST Act. The learned Counsel would also contend that Entry 45 of First Schedule as amended by Amendment Act No.49 of 1976 with effect from 1-9-1976 includes only 'lithographic printing inks and duplicating inks' and that Entry does not include 'printing ink'. The learned Counsel would contend that 'printing ink' is different form 'lithographic printing ink' and therefore 'printing ink', manufactured and sold by the petitioner cannot be considered as an item falling under Entry 45 of First Schedule. In support of this contention, Sri Kumar, learned Counsel would refer to Entry 44 as introduced by Amendment Act 16/63 with effect from 1-8-1963.