AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shanmukham, J.—The State is the petitioner in these three tax revision cases :
These three tax cases relate to the same assessee in respect of two assessment years, 1976-77 and 1977-78. So far as T.C. Nos. 137 and 139 of
1983 are concerned, they relate to the same assessment year. One is against the order rejecting the enhancement petition while the other is against
the order reducing the penalty imposed.
The assessee had a registration certificate and the description set out is in Tamil and it is as follows :
Resale mattum, pithalai, ever silver, chembu pathirangal matrum steel furniture vakayara."" [Words in Tamil script are transliterated here]
The present contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the term ""Vakayara"" [Words in Tamil script are transliterated here]
will only qualify steel furniture but would not qualify the other terms preceding the said expression. On that ground it is contended that the assessee
had dealt with an article not covered by the said registration certificate, namely, aluminium alloy. We are unable to agree with the said interpretation
sought to be made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. On the other hand, the only reasonable interpretation as rendered in English is
resale of only brassware, ever silverware, copperware, steel furniture, etc. It, therefore, follows that ""Vakayara"" [Words in Tamil script are
transliterated here] which is almost equivalent to ""etc."" will cover all the articles referred to earlier and also allied articles. It is not in dispute that on
such an interpretation there can be no room for the contention that the assessee had dealt with an article, namely, aluminium wares, which is not
covered under the registration certificate.
On the above basis it follows that there can be no violation of section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Consequently the orders passed by
the Tribunal are unassailable. The revisions are, therefore, dismissed.