Holding

The entries are clear and unambiguous; glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively and are liable to entry tax at 2%, and the rule "noscuntur a sociis" does not apply.

Summary

The appellants, dealers in glass and plastic bangles, were assessed entry tax under Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 after the Commissioner clarified that glass bangles and plastic bangles fell within Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the 1992 notification, attracting a 2% tax. The appellants challenged the assessment through writ petitions, which were initially quashed by a single judge but later set aside by a division bench that held the entries to be clear and applicable. The Supreme Court examined whether the entries were ambiguous and whether the rule of construction "noscuntur a sociis" could be invoked. It held that the language of the entries was unambiguous, that the word "and" indicated inclusion of both raw material and finished articles, and that the rule of construction was inapplicable. Consequently, the Court affirmed that glass and plastic bangles are taxable under the entries and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Karnataka notification dated 30 April 1992 and thus liable to entry tax.
Whether the rule of statutory construction "noscuntur a sociis" applies to the interpretation of the entries.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979s. 12(7), s. 3(1)

Subjects

entry taxKarnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Actstatutory interpretationnoscuntur a sociisglass banglesplastic banglestax assessmentnotification

Judgment

MIS. BRINDAVAN BANGLE STORES AND ORS. A
v.
THE ASSISTA.."ff COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ANR.

JANUARY 7, 2000
B
[S.P. Kl:RDUKAR, V.N. KHARE AND
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.)

Kamataka Tox on Entry of Goods Act, 1979-Notification dated 30th
April 1979-Entry 30 and Entry 54--Glass Bangles and plastic bangleJ-He/d c
: Covered and subject to Entry Tox at 2%.

The appellants are dealers in glass bangles. The Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, on 21st July 1992, in exercise of his powers under
Section 12(7) of the Knmatalw Tax 1111 Entry of Goods Act, 1979 clarified D
at tile icstance 11( 11ne of the bangle merchants tbat glass bani:les and
plastic bangles would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of
the Notification dated 30th April 1992 and would be subject to tax at 2%.
Consequent up1111 the said clarilicution the Assistant Commissiocer of
Commercial Taxes made an assessment order for 1992-93 and demanded
entry tax 1111 bangles from the appi:llant assessees. E

The assessees, aimr!eved by the assessment orders, preferred writ
y.:titiens llnd Single Jucf3e of the Hiflh Court allo;;ed the same and
quashed the assessment orders. On appeal, Division Be,1cb allow~d the
app;:uls and held that glass bangles and plastic bangles are covered. by F
Entry 30 and Entry 54 res~ctively, of the notification dated 311th April
1992 and subject to entry tax at 2%. Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the assessees' app<'..als, this Court

HELD : 1. A ban! reading of E:itry 30 under the I\arnatalw Tax on G
Entry of Goods Act, 1979 would make it clear that the articles mmtio:ied
therein are subject to payment of entry tax. The word 'and' used in Entry
30 wmdd unmMaltably indicate thut the glass ~hects (raw materials) as
\~ell as articles made of glass lrmlld be subject to entry tax. The same
analogy has to be extended to Entry 54. [101-D] H
97
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A 2. On readi1l3 Entry 30 and Entry 54 there is no manner of doubt
thnt there is neither any ambiguity nor they lack any clarity. The legisla·
ture intended to levy and collect entry tnx on the articles mentioned in both
these entries. The words used in Entry 30 "all articles made of glass• and
In Entry 54 "articles made from all kinds of and all forms of plastic
B Including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene and the like
materials" would make it quite clear that the entry tax is leviable on such
articles. Glass bangles and plastic bangles would be clearly covered by
Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the said Notification and are subject
to entry tax at 2%. (102-B, HJ

C 3. The impusnedjudgment has very succinctly dealt with the conten·
tions raised on behalf of both the parties nod also dealt with the various
reported decisions in great length. It does not suffer from any defect or
lllegullty and hence confirmed. (102-C, 103-B]

Atul Glass Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, f1986J 3 SCC
D 480; M/s. Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 2
SCALE 380 and Pardeep Aggarbatt~ Ludhiana v. State of Punjab & Ors.,
(1997) 8 sec 511, ~ferred and distinguished.

4. The Division Bench has rightly held that rule of.construction
"noscuntur a sociis" has no application to the facts and circumstances of
E the instant case, where the object of the legislature in using wider words
is clear and free fr11m ambiguity. This rule cannot be pressed into service.
[lOl·E, HJ
The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR (1960) SC
610, relied on.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1078-
1086 of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.98 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.A. Nos. 4090-98 of 1995.
G
S.K. Dholakia, E.C. Vidya Sagar, B.K. Choudhary and Rohit Kr.
Singh for the Appellants.
,
Mohan V. Katarki, Ajay K. Dutta, N. Ganpathy for the Respondents.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BRINDAVAN BANGLE OTORl!S '· ASSIT. COMMR. OF COMMl!RCIAL TAXES (S.P. KURD UK.AR. J.; 99

S.P. IWRDI.:ICAR, J. These appeals by Special Leave are filed by the A
dealers in glass and plastic bangles. The question which has been raised in
. '
these appeals is as regards the validity of imposition of entry tax on glass
and plastic bangles under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979
(for short 'the Act').

2. The State Government on 30th April, 1992 notified various com- B
modities for purpose of levy of entry tax. Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the
notification are relevant for the purposes of disposal of these appeals.

Entry 30 : Glass sheets and all articles made of glass.

Entry 54 : Plastic sheets, granules and articles made from all kinds c
of and all forms of plastic including articles made of
polypropylene, polystyrene and the like materials.

It appears that one of the bangle merchants sought clarification from the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as to whether ''glass" bangles and D
plastic bangles" would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notifica-
tion dated 30th April, 1992 and is subject to entry tax at 2%. The Commis-
sioner of Commercial Taxes on 21st July, 1992 in exercise of his PO\~ers
under Section 12(7) of the Entry Tax Act clarified that glass bangles 'and
plastic bangles would be covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the Notifica-
tion dated 30th April, 1992 and is subject to entry tax at 2%. Consequent E
upon the said clarification, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax
made an assessment order for 1992-93 and demanded entry tax on bangles.
The appellants aggrieved by the assessment orders preferred various writ
petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. The Learned Single Judge
after hearing the parties, by his common judgment and order dated 15th F
March, 1995, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the assessment order
made against the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the respondents herein
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge preferred writ
appeals before the High Court. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court after hearing the parties vide its common judgment and order dated G
22nd June, 1998 allowed these appeals and held that the glass bangles and
plastic bangles are covered by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the
Notification dated 30th April, 1992 and are subject to entry tax at 2%.
Consequently, the learned Division Bench set aside the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge. It is against this common judgment H
lCXJ SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20C0] 1 S.C.R.
A and order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, the
appellants have preferred these appeals.

3. Chapter 2 of the said Act deals with the levy of tax. Section 3(1)
of the Act provides that there shall be levied and collected tax on entry of
B any goods specified in the first schedule into a local area for consumption,
use or sale therdn at such rates which may be prescribed by the State
Government by issuance of a Notification. Different dates could be
specified in respect of different goods or different classes of goods for
different local areas. In exercise of this power, the Government of Kar-
nataka issued Notification No. FD 69 CET 92(i) dated 30th April, 1992. A
C list was accordingly appended to the Notification containing Entry 30 and
Entry 54 which we have already reproduced herein above. It is common
ground that these entries correspond to Entry 39 and Entry 70 to the first
schedule of the said Act, but for convenience sake, we shall refer to them
as Entry 30 and Entry 54 in this judgment.

D
4. Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior Advocate appearing in support
of these appeals urged that the interpretation given by the lt:arnt:d Single
Judge as regards these two entries by following the ru!t: of construction
"noscuntur a sociis ' is more appropriate and systemic because the words
used by the legislatures were neither clear nor free from ambiguity. He
E then contended th..t the identity of bangles is distinct than the articles of
glass. When an article acquires commercial sense and identity, then, it by
necessary implication stands excluded from the gcneral dcscription of the
material from whic'.:!. it is made.

p 5. Countering this submission, learned counsel for the respondents
urged that Entry 30 and Entry 54 are very clear and unambiguous. The
words of these two entries being clear and unambiguous, the question of
interpretation of the same in any other meaning except giving a true
meaning as they stand, does not arise. These two entries are in two purts.
The first part of Entry 30 deals with the glass sheets which is nothing but
G raw materials required for manufacture of articles made of glass whereas
the second part of the said entry relates to finished product made of glass
sheets as also articles made of glass. This interpretation can be extended
to Entry 54 also as it is identically worded. The words ''and'' occurring in
Entry 30 (and Entry 54) assume great importance and it reflt:cts the
H intention of the legh.lature that it intended to levy tax both on glass sheets
HRlNDAV ~N rlAN(iLE STOR.b.S "· AS~TI. COMMR. OF W'vf\.il:~RCIAL TAXES [S.P. !(lJRDUKA.R. J.] 101

as also on finished products of glass/articks made of glass, which is found A
in the second part of Entry 30. The same analogy would extend to Entry
54. It was, thcrdore, contended on behalf of the respond..:nts that the
learned Singk Judge was wrong in applying the rule of construction
11oscwuur a sociis. The Division Bench has rightly construed both the
cntrit:s and, therefore, impugned judgment calls for no interference.
B
6. Coming to the first submission, it is true that the identity of bangles
is distinct than the articles of th..: glass yet they arc identified arc called by
the name of material used for making such bangles for examplt: glass
bangles, plastic bangles etc. Even in common parlance and in the market
such banglt:s are known as glass bangles and therefore the expression C
articles of glass in Entry 30 would include the bangles i.e. articles made of
glass. The bare reading of Entry 30 would make it clear that the articles
mentioned then::in are subject to payment of entry tax. The words "and"
used in Entry 30 would unmistakably indicate that the glass sheets (raw
materials) as well as all articles made of glass would be subject to payment D
of entry tax. The same analogy has to be extended to Entry 54.

7. The second contention raised on behalf of appellants relating to
clarity and ambiguity of Entry 30 and Entry 54 and application of such
construction of "noscuntur a sociis" in our opinion the learned Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court has rightly held that the said rule of E
construction has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
This Court in The State of Bombay and Others v. The Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha and Others, AIR (1960) SC 610 has considered in detail the rule of
construction noscuntur a sociis and in paragraph 9, it is observed thus :
F
We are not impressed by this argument, it must be borne in
mind that noscuntur a sociis is merely a rule of construction and
it cannot prevail in cases where it it clear that the wider words
have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the
defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention
of the legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower G
significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that the present rule
of construction can be usefully applied. It can also be applied .
wht:n: tht: mcaning of the words of wider import is doubtful; but,
whert: the objcct of the legislature in using wider words is clear
and frt:e from ambiguity, the rule of construction in question H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200Gj 1 S.C.R.
A cannot be pressed into service."

8. As stated earlier on reading Entry 30 and Entry 54, we have no
manner of doubt that then: is neither any ambiguity nor they lack any
clarity. The legislature intended to levy and collect entry tax on the articles
mentioned in both these entries. Thi:: words used therein ar~ of wider
B import and clearly indicate that all articlt:s made of glass or made from all
kinds of and all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene,
polystyrene and like materials arc subjccted tu payment of entry tax. It
cannot be disputed that the articles in question namdy, bangles are made
of glass and/or made of plastic etc. The impugned judgment has very
C succinctly dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties
and also dealt with the various reported d1.:cisions of this Court and other
High Courts in great length. We are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the Division Bench.

D 9. Corning to the next submission of Mr. Dholakia that when an
article acquires commercial sense and identity, then it by necessary im-
plication stands excluded from the general description of the material from
which it is made. In support of this submission, learned counsel retied upon
the decision in Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central
E Excise, [1986) 3 SCC 480, M/s. Geep Flashligllt Industries Ltd., 28, South
Road, Allahabad v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 2 SCALE 380 and
Pardeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab and Others, [1997) 8 SCC
511. We have gone through these judgments and, in our opinion, the same
are distinguishable on facts. The words used in the respective entries are
F quite distinct and, therefore, these decisions would not apply to the facts .-
of the present case. ln,Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Tariff Item 23-A(4)
1' \
or 68 of the First Schedule of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 fell for I

consideration, 23-A( 4) relates to ''Glass and Glassware'" and whether glass '
mirrors, Glass screens fitted in motor vehicles as windscreens, n:ar screens
and window screcns fall in this item. Court held it falls under residuary '
G Tariff Item 68. Glassware which would in common parlance meant
tableware like glass tumblers, glass dishes, plates etc. and would not
include glass mirrors, glass screens fitted in motor vehicles as windscreens,
rear screens and window screens. However, the words used in Entry 30 "all
article made of glass" and in Entry 54 "articles made from all kinds of and
H all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene
BRl\/DAVAN BANGLE :-)'ORl:!.S ~. ASSTI. f'(l!\."':..IR. Of ( 'CiMMHRl ·\AL~ UbS [S.1'. KURDUKAk. J, 103

and like materials wotild make it quite dear that the entry tax is leviable A
on such articles. Glass bangles and plastic bangles would be clearly covered
by Entry 30 and Entry 54 respectively of the said Notification and are
\ subject to entry tax at 2%.

lO. In our considered view, the impugned judgment does not suffer
from any defect and or illegality and, therefore, the same has to be B
confirmed. We accordingly do so.

11. In the result, the appeals to stand dismissed with costs.

P.K.S. Appeals dismissed.

\"
/