The Commissioner of Income Tax - (TDS) vs. M/s. Devi Chits and Finance

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 46/2013 M/s Jagdamba Machinery Store, Near Ganesh Talkies, Sri Ganganagar through its Proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Amar Nath, Aged 47 years, resident of Sriganganagar ----Petitioner Versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 43/2013 M/s Jagdamba Machinery Store, Near Ganesh Talkies, Sri Ganganagar through its Proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Amar Nath, Aged 47 years, resident of Sriganganagar ----Petitioner Versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 44/2013 M/s Jagdamba Machinery Store, Near Ganesh Talkies, Sri Ganganagar through its Proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Amar Nath, Aged 47 years, resident of Sriganganagar ----Petitioner Versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 45/2013 M/s Jagdamba Machinery Store, Near Ganesh Talkies, Sri Ganganagar through its Proprietor Shri Anil Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Amar Nath, Aged 47 years, resident of Sriganganagar ----Petitioner Versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (2 of 10) [CR-46/2013] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS JUDGMENT DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21/05/2024 These Civil (VAT) Revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioner – M/s Jagdamba Machinery Store under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to “Act of 2003” for short) against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to “learned Tax Board” in short) in Appeal Nos.2330/2011/Sri Ganganagar, 2331/2011/Sri Ganganagar, 2332/2011/Sri Ganganagar, 2333/2011/Sri Ganganagar. Since the parties and issues in all these revision petitions are common, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietor firm and is engaged in the business of sale of agricultural implements. On 08.03.2010, the business premises of the petitioner were surveyed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Ward-I Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar. During survey, it was found that petitioner has made sale of “power sprayers” as exempted goods but the same does not fall under any of the entries provided under S.No.1 of Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 and hence the power sprayers were liable to be taxed at the rate of 4% under Schedule-IV of the Act of 2003. Similarly, the parts

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (3 of 10) [CR-46/2013] and accessories of the power sprayers would attract the rate of tax of 12.5%/14% under Schedule-V of the Act of 2003. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated by respondent Authority, the petitioner submitted its reply that power sprayers and its parts and accessories were an exempted product and it was contended that the word “sprayer” provided under S.Nos.14 and 29 of the ordinary agricultural implements under Schedule-I would also include the “power sprayers”. However, the assessing authority while rejecting the contention of the petitioner passed respective assessment orders in all cases. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned assessing orders, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Bikaner, (hereinafter referred to ‘appellate Authority’ in short) which too were rejected vide orders dated 29.08.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred respective appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The learned Tax Board found that all the transactions were recorded by the petitioner in the books of accounts and, therefore, set aside the penalty under Section 61(1) of the Act of 2003 but upheld the imposition of differential tax and interest on the petitioner. Thus, the learned Tax Board partly allowed the respective appeals of the petitioner vide orders dated 11.12.2012. Against the impugned orders dated 11.12.2012, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Schedule – I of the Act of 2003 provides for goods, the sales or purchase of which, are exempt from tax. Clause(a) of S.No.1 provides for

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (4 of 10) [CR-46/2013] ‘ordinary agricultural implements’. Item No.14 therein is sprayer, duster and sprayer-cum-duster and item No.29 therein is sprayer including their parts and accessories. Learned Tax Board has held that since “power sprayers” have not been included under any of the entries in Schedule-I of the Act of 2003, the same are not exempt from payment of tax, whereas if S.No.29 of Schedule-I is to be seen then it specifically provides for sprayer including their parts and accessories, therefore, it is incorrect to state that “power sprayers” are not included in the above category. Thus, the respondent Authority has committed grave illegality in passing the assessment orders and learned Tax Board has also not considered this aspect of the matter. However, it is submitted that earlier the “sprayer and drip irrigation equipment” was mentioned at S.No.29 of the Schedule-I which was substituted by the word “sprayer including their parts and accessories” and S.No.30 was added in the Schedule in 2006 vide notification dated 11.04.2006 by which the “parts and accessories specific to the sprinkler system and drip irrigation system including pipes which are used exclusively for sprinkler and drip system” were exempt from payment of tax. It is further submitted that the said notification dated 11.04.2006 was again amended by notification dated 09.03.2007 by which for the word “sprayer” under S.No.29 “sprayer including their parts and accessories” was substituted. Learned counsel submits that in view of the above, it is clear from the series of Notifications and the word “their” used in S.No.29 that all kinds of sprayer including power sprayer are exempted from payment of tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tax Board has not appreciated the true purpose of

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (5 of 10) [CR-46/2013] the three categories of agricultural implements provided under S.No.1 of Schedule-I of the Act of 2003. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the learned assessing officer, learned appellate authority as well as learned Tax Board may be quashed and set aside. The questions framed in the present revision petitions may be answered affirmatively in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned assessing officer, learned appellate authority and learned Tax Board have not committed any illegality while passing the orders impugned by holding that power sprayers are liable to be taxed at the rate of 4% under Schedule-IV of the Act of 2003 and the parts and accessories of the power sprayers would attract rate of interest at 12.5%/14% under Schedule-V of the Act of 2003. Learned counsel for the respondent, while relying upon the Schedule -IV and Schedule-V of the Act of 2003, submits that the respondent authority has rightly passed the assessment orders and the same have rightly been affirmed by the learned appellate authority as well as learned Tax Board. With these submissions, it is submitted that the present revision petitions may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as Schedule-I, Schedule-IV and Schedule-V of the Act of 2003. 7. This Court vide orders dated 01.05.2013 and 29.04.2013 while admitting the revision petitions framed following substantial questions of law for adjudication of the present revision petitions:- “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tax board has erred in law in holding that the item “powers sprayer” does not falls under Schedule-I of the

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (6 of 10) [CR-46/2013] Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and is, therefore, taxable @ of 4% under Schedule-IV of the above Act ? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tax board has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that item “sprayers including their parts and accessories” under S.No.29 of the ordinary agricultural implements of Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would also include the “powers sprayers and its parts and accessories”? 8. Before deciding the controversy at hand, it is necessary to delve into the rigors to be applied while interpreting a tax statute. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation reported in MANU/OR/0076/1993 wherein the Orissa High Court has discussed the interpretation of e taxing statute and has held that Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. The relevant part of para No.7 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “7...while interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute, in the light of what is clearly expressed ; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed ; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. One has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing has to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. In case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted. But even so, the fundamental rule of construction is the same for all statutes, whether fiscal or otherwise. The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is just or expedient. The expressed intention must guide the court. If the intention of the Legislature is clear and beyond doubt, then the fact that the provisions could have been more artistically drafted cannot be a ground to treat any part of a

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (7 of 10) [CR-46/2013] provision as otiose. Though in recent times there has been change from emphasis on grammatical meaning to intention of the Legislature or purpose of statute, yet if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, the court has a paramount duty to put upon the language of the Legislature a rational meaning. In the past, the judges and lawyers spoke of a golden rule by which statutes were to be interpreted according to the grammatical and ordinary sense of the word. They took the grammatical or literal meaning unmindful of the consequences. Even if such a meaning gave rise to unjust results which the Legislature never intended, the grammatical meaning alone was held to prevail. They said that it would be for the Legislature to amend the Act and not for the court to intervene by its innovation. During the last several years, the golden rule has been given a farewell. Now the words of the statute are examined rationally. If the words are precise and cover the situation at hand, there is no necessity to go any further. The court expounds those words in the natural and ordinary sense of the words. As indicated above, in case of ambiguity and uncertainty, every word, every Section and every provision is examined. The statute is examined as a whole. The necessity which gave rise to the Act is also examined. Mischiefs which the Legislature intended to redress are looked at. The court will not consider any provision out of the framework of the statute. It will not view the provisions as abstract principles separated from the motive force behind. The provisions have to be considered in a manner so as to ensure coherence and consistency within the law as a whole and to avoid undesirable consequences. This adventure, no doubt, enlarges the court's discretion as to interpretation. But it does not imply power to the court to substitute its own notions of legislative intention. …………...” 9. Now, for deciding the aforesaid question No.1, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tax board has erred in law in holding that the item “power sprayers” does not fall under Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 and is, therefore, taxable @ of 4% under Schedule-IV of the above Act, it would be

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (8 of 10) [CR-46/2013] apt to reproduce relevant portions of Schedule-I and Schedule-IV which read as under:- SCHEDULE - I [See sub-section (1) of section 8] Goods, the Sales or Purchase of which are Exempt from Tax S.No. Description of Goods 1 2 1 Agricultural implements manually operated or animal driven or tractor or power driven, spare parts and accessories thereof , namely; (a) Ordinary Agricultural implements : 1. Hand Hoe (Khurpa or Khurpi), 2. Spade, 3. Gandasa, 4. Pick i.e. khudali, 5. Axe, 6. Khanta, 7. Belcha, 8. Patela, 9. Hand-driven chaff cutters and their parts (except bolts, nuts and springs), 10. Sickle, 11. Beguri, 12. Hand-wheel hoe, 13. Horticultural tools like budding, grafting knife, secateur, pruning shear or hook, hedge shear, sprinkler, rake, 14. Sprayer, duster and sprayer-cum-duster, 15. Soil injector, 16. Jandra, 17.Wheel barrow, 18. Winnowing fan or winnower,19. Dibbler, 20. Puddler, 21. Fertilizer seed broadcaster, 22. Maize Sheller, 23. Groundnut decorticator, 24. Manure or seed screen, 25. Flame gun, 26. Seed grader, 27. Tasla (includes Ghamela, Tagari and Parat, made of ferrous metal, 27A. Crowbar (sabbal); 28. Tangli., 29. Sprayer including their parts and accessories, 30. Parts and accessories specific to the sprinkler system and drip irrigation system including pipes which are used exclusively for sprinkler and drip system (but not used for ordinary works as carriage pipes). 2 …………. 3 ………... SCHEDULE IV [See section 4] Goods Taxable at 5% S.No. Description of Goods Rate of Tax % 1 2 3 1. Agricultural implements other than mentioned in Schedule-I. 5 2. Omitted w.e.f. 9-3-10 3. All intangible goods like copyright, patent, REP license etc. 4. All kinds of bricks other than mentioned in Schedule I, asphaltic roofing and refractory monolithic 5. All metal castings and manhole covers made of cast iron casting. 6. sewing thread 7. All utensils including pressure cookers, pan, and cutlery but excluding utensils made of precious metals and stainless steel. 8. Omitted w.e.f. 07-03-2016 9. Appalam, vadam and vathal 10. Arecanut powder and betel nut

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (9 of 10) [CR-46/2013] 11. Article made of rolled gold and imitation jewellary 12. Atukulu 13. Bamboo 10. A bare perusal of the Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 makes it amply clear that there is no specific word like “power sprayers” in Schedule-I. S. No.1 of Schedule-IV specifically states that the same is taxable. Apparently, the goods power sprayer do not fall under Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, is taxable under Schedule-IV of the above Act. 11. As regard the question No.2, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned tax board has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that item “sprayers including their parts and accessories” under S.No.29 of the ordinary agricultural implements of Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would also include the “power sprayers” the same is also decided against the petitioner as “sprayers including their parts and accessories” cannot be said to be the same as “power sprayers and its parts and accessories”. For the present controversy, Schedule-V is also relevant which reproduced as under :- Schedule V [See section 4] Goods Taxable at *[“14%] Description of Goods Rate of Tax % 2 3 Goods not covered in any other Schedule under the Act or under any notification issued under section 4 of the Act *[14%] Schedule V for the existing expression “12.5” where ever occurring the ssion“14” substituted vide Notification No.F.12(84)FD/Tax/2009-14 : 8-7-2009 with immediate effect 12. Schedule-V provides for the goods taxable which are not covered in any other schedule under the Act or under any

[2024:RJ-JD:22486] (10 of 10) [CR-46/2013] notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Apparently, the goods in question i.e. “power sprayers” is not specifically included in any Schedule and, therefore, the goods “power sprayers” is taxable as per Schedule-IV and the parts and accessories thereof are taxable under Schedule-V. 13. The learned Tax Board also while dealing with the Schedule-I of the Act of 2003 held as under: "mDr vuqlwph ds vuqlkj ekuo pkfyr] i'kq pkfyr ;k Vz~sDVj ;k 'kfDr pkfyr izfof"V esa vafdr uketn d`f"k midj.kksa dks djeqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS A mi'khZ"kd (a) ds rgr lk/kkj.k d`f"k midj.k gSa] ftuesa dze la[;k 14 o 29 ij Lizs;j] MLVj rFkk Lizs;j de MLVj dk rFkk muds Lis;j ikV~Zl o ,lsljht dks vafdr fd;k gS] ysfdu vihykFkkZ }kjk ikoj Lizs;j o muds ikV~Zl dk fodz; fd;k x;k gSA ikoj pkfyr d`f"k midj.k izfof"V ds mi'khZ"kd (c) ds rgr of.kZr gS] ftuesa vihykFkhZ }kjk fodz; fd;s tkus okyk ikoj Lizs;j 'kkfey ugha gSA d`f"k midj.kksa dh lwph Namely ls izkjEHk gksrh gS] ftldk vk'k; gS fd of.kZr midj.kksa ds vykok dksbZ Hkh midj.k d`f"k midj.kksa ds :i esa bl izfof"V ds rgr djeqDr ugha gSA (1981) 47 ,l-Vh- lh- 337 esa ekuuh; enzkl mPp U;k;ky; us namely 'kCn ds vFkZ dks fuUu izdkj of.kZr fd;k gS%& "Consequently there can be no doubt about the meaning of the word "namely, that is, it is restrictive in the sense that the general expression which precedes the word "namely"is confined to the itemized expressions that follow the word "namely". Consequently the meaning of the word "namely"can only be restrictive and can be neither illustrative nor expansive. ,slh fLFkfr esa ikoj Lizs;j osV vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph&IV dh dze la[;k 1 vuqlkj 4 izfr'kr ls dj ;ksX; gS rFkk ikVZ~l o ,lsljht vuqlwph-V ds vuqlkj 12-5 izfr'kr dh nj ls dj ;ksX; gSA" 14. Thus, in light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned orders and, therefore, the present revision petitions are dismissed accordingly. Stay petitions also stand disposed of. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 9-12 Bharti/-