(S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No(s). 9753 of 2011, decided on September 21, 2023
Texonic Instruments _______________________________ Appellant;
v.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another _____ Respondent(s).
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 9754 of 2011
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6056 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32603 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6057 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32609 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6058 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32606 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6059 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32607 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6060 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32608 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6061 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 31100 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6062 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32605 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6063 of 2023
(@ SLP(C) No(s). 32604 of 2011)
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 10775 of 2011
Civil Appeal No(s). 9753 of 2011; Civil Appeal No(s). 9754 of 2011; Civil Appeal No(s). 6056 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32603 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6057 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32609 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6058 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32606 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6059 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32607 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6060 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32608 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6061 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 31100 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6062 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32605 of 2011); Civil Appeal No(s). 6063 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No(s). 32604 of 2011); and Civil Appeal No(s). 10775 of 2011
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted in the listed special leave petitions.
2. This Court find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment which hold that installation cables, outlet or connection modules, patch cords, patch panels, network cards, fibre optic cables etc. are not covered in Entry C.20 (ii)(b) of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
3. The view expressed, conforms to the judgment of this Court, in the cases of Collector of Central Excise v. Grasim Industries : (2005) 3 SCR 466 and Castrol India Ltd. v. C.C.E. : (2005) 2 SCR 414, which had ruled that the phrase “that is to say” are to be given a restrictive meaning, rather than expanding the scope of the preceding words. In Castrol India (supra), it was held as follows:—
“In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition, Vol. 5 at page 2753, we find “That is to say”, is the commencement of an ancillary clause, which explains the meaning of the principal clause. It has the following properties (1) it must not be contrary to the principal clause; (2) it must neither increase nor dimnish it; (3) but where the physical clause is general in terms it may restrict it, see this explained with many examples, Stukeley v. Butler Hob, 1971”. The quotation, the expression “that is to say” is employed to make clear and fix the meaning of what is to be explained or defined. Such words are not used as a rule, to amplify a meaning while removing a possible doubt for which purpose the word “includes” is generally employed. In unusual cases, depending upon the context of the words “that is to say”, this expression may be followed by illustrative instances.
The expression “that is to say” in sub-heading 2710.60 has to be interpreted to be words of limitation. The fact that sub-heading 2710.60 contains an exclusion clause goes to show that there may be other lubricating oils which may fall in the residuary heading “others”.
4. Having regard to these facts, the Court is satisfied that the final decision classifying all the items in question, as falling in Part ‘E’ of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is correct.
5. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
