Wipro Enterprises Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court dismissed seven Civil Revision Petitions filed by Wipro Enterprises Private Limited and upheld the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal sustaining entry tax on Hydraulic Oil under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act). The judgment was delivered on 11 August 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit and Hon’ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao.
CRP Nos. 581/2023, 583/2023 and 589/2023 challenged the common order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in STA Nos. 955/2016, 741/2016 and 334/2016. CRP Nos. 584/2023, 586/2023, 588/2023 and 590/2023 challenged the common order dated 11.04.2023 in STA Nos. 948/2016, 950/2016, 951/2016 and 949/2016. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders passed by the authorities under the KTEG Act.
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and trading of Hydraulic Cylinders. During the relevant assessment years, it procured Hydraulic Oil (HLP Type) from suppliers situated outside Karnataka and caused entry of the commodity into the local area for use in Hydraulic Cylinders manufactured by it. Proceedings were initiated on the premise that entry tax had not been paid on the value of Hydraulic Oil brought into the local area. The Assessing Authority levied tax and penalty, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals, and the Tribunal subsequently affirmed the levy.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that Hydraulic Oil was distinct from lubricating oil and was primarily used for transmission of hydraulic power and generation of mechanical force in hydraulic systems. It argued that the mere possession of lubricating properties could not make Hydraulic Oil lubricating oil or bring it within Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act. It was further contended that Hydraulic Oil was not specifically enumerated either in Entry 67 or in the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and therefore could not be brought within the charging provision by implication. The petitioner also challenged satisfaction of the requirements of Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act.
The petitioner relied upon Carl Bechem Lubricants (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Merlyn Hydrocarbons (P) Ltd., M/s. Hyva India (P) Ltd., Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., and two decisions concerning Mysuru Polymers and Rubber Products Ltd.
The State contended that Hydraulic Oil was admittedly a petroleum product and fell within Entry 67 of the First Schedule read with Sl.No.1(viii)(e) of the Notification dated 30.03.2002. It relied particularly upon the Division Bench decision in Hyva India (P) Ltd., where Hydraulic Oil had been held to be a consumable liable to entry tax. The State also submitted that the Supreme Court had already interpreted the expression “and others” occurring in Entry 67 in Indian Aluminium Company Limited, making the absence of a specific reference to Hydraulic Oil immaterial.
On the challenge to Section 6(1), the High Court noted that the provision empowers the Assessing Authority to reassess escaped turnover, under-assessed turnover, turnover assessed at a lower rate, or cases where exemption or deduction has been wrongly granted. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the conditions contemplated under Section 6(1) were satisfied. The High Court found that no jurisdictional infirmity or patent illegality had been demonstrated warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
The principal issue concerned the interpretation of Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act and the Notification dated 30.03.2002. The High Court noted that Entry 67 deals with petroleum products and includes lubricating oil, transformer oil, brake fluid or clutch fluid, bitumen, tar and others, while specifically excluding aviation fuel, LPG, kerosene and naphtha for use in the manufacture of fertilizers.
The Court relied on Indian Aluminium Company Limited’s case and held that the words “and others” occurring after the specified petroleum products take within their fold petroleum products other than those expressly enumerated. The Court further observed that the existence of an exclusion clause demonstrated the legislative intent to include all petroleum products except those specifically excluded.
The High Court then applied the coordinate Bench decision in Hyva India (P) Ltd. The earlier decision had considered whether Hydraulic Oil brought into a local area and used in tippers and dumpers was liable to entry tax under the KTEG Act. Following the law declared by the Apex Court, the coordinate Bench had held that the expression “tar and others” was wide enough to include Hydraulic Oil. It had further held that Hydraulic Oil was a consumable used in hydraulic systems and not a raw material employed in the manufacture of a finished product, as no product emerged from its use.
The present High Court held that the ratio in Hyva India directly governed the petitions because the commodity under consideration was Hydraulic Oil and the issue was substantially identical. The Court stated that it was bound by the coordinate Bench ruling and found no fault in the Tribunal’s application of that decision.
The Court distinguished Carl Bechem Lubricants (India) Pvt. Ltd. In that case, the commodity was IPOL Cylinder Oil 1200, which had been found to be base oil used as a raw material in the manufacture of grease and not lubricating oil. The levy of entry tax had been held unsustainable in that factual context. The High Court held that the distinction between a raw material and a finished consumable product in Carl Bechem did not dilute Hyva India; rather, it reinforced the reasoning applied in the latter case.
The High Court also upheld the Tribunal’s distinction of the decisions in Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Merlyn Hydrocarbons (P) Ltd., observing that the commodities involved in those cases were different and the issues were not identical to the issue concerning Hydraulic Oil.
Consequently, the Court rejected the submission that Hydraulic Oil escaped Entry 67 merely because it was not expressly named. In view of the authoritative interpretation of “and others” in Indian Aluminium Company Limited and the coordinate Bench ruling in Hyva India, the omission of the words “Hydraulic Oil” from the statutory entry was held to be inconsequential.
The Court held that Hydraulic Oil is a petroleum product falling within Entry 67 of the First Schedule and Sl.No.1(viii)(e) of the Notification dated 30.03.2002; that it is a consumable and not a raw material; and that entry tax is leviable when it is brought into the local area for consumption, use or sale therein. The Tribunal’s findings were held not to suffer from perversity, illegality or error of law warranting interference in revision.
Accordingly, the substantial questions of law were answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. CRP Nos. 581/2023, 583/2023, 584/2023, 586/2023, 588/2023, 589/2023 and 590/2023 were dismissed. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s orders dated 30.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 were confirmed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Cases Discussed
- Carl Bechem Lubricants (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka and another, TAET No.7/2011 and TAET Nos.8-9/2011, order dated 17.04.2013 — distinguished because the commodity there was IPOL Cylinder Oil 1200 found to be base oil used as a raw material in manufacturing grease, unlike the Hydraulic Oil involved in the present petitions.
- M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, TEAT No.10/2014, order dated 16.12.2020 — distinguished because the commodity and issues involved were different from those concerning Hydraulic Oil.
- M/s. Merlyn Hydrocarbons (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another, ST. Appeal Nos.76, 78, 930 and 931/2016, order dated 21.10.2022 — distinguished because the commodities and issues involved were different from the present Hydraulic Oil dispute.
- M/s. Hyva India (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others, TAET No.5/2011 c/w TAET No.4/2011, TAET No.3/2011 & TAET No.6/2011, order dated 24.08.2012 — applied as the coordinate Bench decision directly governing the taxability of Hydraulic Oil under Entry 67.
- Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another, AIR 2001 SC 795 — relied upon for interpreting “and others” in Entry 67 as encompassing petroleum products other than those expressly enumerated.
- The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others v. M/s. Mysuru Polymers and Rubber Products Ltd., W.A.No.4596/2017 (T-YET), order dated 05.10.2021 — cited by the petitioner; the supplied judgment does not separately set out a substantive treatment of this decision beyond its identification among the authorities relied upon.
- M/s. Mysuru Polymers and Rubber Products Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others, W.A.No.32684-32685/2015 (T-EYT), order dated 06.01.2016 — cited by the petitioner; the supplied judgment does not separately set out a substantive treatment of this decision beyond its identification among the authorities relied upon.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
The CRP Nos.581/2023, 583/2023 and 589/2023 are directed against the common order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in STA Nos.955/2016, 741/2016 and 334/2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders passed by the authorities under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, ‘the KTEG Act’).
The CRP Nos.584/2023, 586/2023, 588/2023 and 590/2023 are directed against the common order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in STA Nos.948/2016, 950/2016, 951/2016 and 949/2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders passed by the authorities under the KTEG Act. These petitions were admitted to examine the following questions of law:-
“(i) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right in holding that Hydraulic Oil cannot be treated as a schedule commodity for levy of entry tax, as per list of Petroleum Products at Sl.No.1(1) (viii)(a) of the Table in the Notification dated 30.03.2002?
(ii) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right that the requirement of Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act is fulfilled?
(iii) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right in holding that the “hydraulic oil” is used as a consumable, it is liable for entry tax, in spite that there is no entry in the notification or entries schedule covering the said “hydraulic oil”?
(iv) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right in holding that since the “hydraulic oil” also has the use of lubrication and creates mechanical energy, it is not input or raw material and therefore it is taxable under entry tax?
(v) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the KAT was right in holding that the words “and others” used in Entry 67 of First schedule to the KTEG act has wide enough in scope (comprehensive/expansive) to cover “hydraulic oil”?”
2. The petitioners in all the petitions is the appellant and the respondents in all the petitions are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of all the petitions are that:- The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of Hydraulic Cylinders. During the relevant assessment years, the petitioner procured Hydraulic Oil (HLP Type) from suppliers situated outside the State and caused entry of the said commodity into the local area for use in the Hydraulic Cylinders manufactured by it. Proceedings were initiated under the KTEG Act on the premise that entry tax had not been paid on the value of Hydraulic Oil brought into the local area. The Assessing Authority levied tax and penalty. The appeals preferred before the First Appellate Authority having been dismissed, the petitioner carried the matter before the Tribunal. By the impugned common order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals holding that Hydraulic Oil is a petroleum product falling within Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act and Sl.No.1(viii)(e) of the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and consequently liable to entry tax. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petitions are filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Hydraulic Oil is distinct from lubricating oil and is primarily used for transmission of hydraulic power and generation of mechanical force in hydraulic systems. It was submitted that merely because Hydraulic Oil possesses lubricating properties, it cannot be classified as lubricating oil or as a commodity falling within Entry 67 of the First Schedule. It was further contended that Hydraulic Oil is not specifically enumerated either in Entry 67 or in the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and, therefore, cannot be brought within the charging provision by implication.
5. Reliance was placed on the below decisions to contend that commodities not specifically covered by the statutory entry are not amenable to levy of entry tax. It was also urged that the requirements of Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act were not fulfilled and that the levy is consequently unsustainable.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgment:-
- Carl Bechem Lubricants (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Karnataka and another by order dated 17.04.2013 passed in TAET No.7/2011 and TAET Nos.8-9/2011; • M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated 16.12.2020 passed in TEAT No.10/2014; • M/s. Merlyn Hydrocarbons (P) Ltd., v. State of Karnataka and another by order dated 21.10.2022 passed in ST. Appeal Nos.76,78 & 930 and 931/2016;
- M/s. Hyva India (P) Ltd., v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others by order dated 24.08.2012 passed in TAET No.5/2011 c/w. TAET No.4/2011, TAET No.3/2011 & TAET No.6/2011; • Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 795; • The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others v. M/s. Mysuru Polymers and Rubber Products Ltd., by order dated 05.10.2021 passed in W.A.No.4596/2017 (T-YET); • M/s. Mysuru Polymers and Rubber Products Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others by order dated 06.01.2016 passed in W.A.No.32684-32685/2015(T-EYT).
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that Hydraulic Oil is admittedly a petroleum product and squarely falls within Entry 67 of the First Schedule read with Sl.No.1(viii)(e) of the Notification dated 30.03.2002. It was contended that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hyva India (P) Ltd’s case (supra) wherein Hydraulic Oil was specifically held to be a consumable liable to entry tax under the KTEG Act.
8. It is further submitted that the expression “and others” occurring in Entry 67 has already been interpreted by the Apex Court in Indian Aluminium Company Limited’s case (supra) and therefore the omission to specifically mention Hydraulic Oil in the statutory entry is of no consequence. It is also contended that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner relate to different commodities and distinct factual situations and hence have no application to the present case.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides and have perused the material placed on record.
11. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether Hydraulic Oil brought into the local area by the petitioner is liable to entry tax under Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act read with the Notification dated 30.03.2002 and whether the Tribunal was justified in affirming the levy.
12. Insofar as the challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act is concerned, Section 6(1) empowers the Assessing Authority to reassess escaped turnover, under-assessed turnover, turnover assessed at a lower rate or cases where exemption or deduction has been wrongly granted. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the material on record, has recorded a finding that the conditions contemplated under Section 6(1) stood satisfied. No jurisdictional infirmity or patent illegality was demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the said finding in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The contention therefore does not merit acceptance.
13. The issue essentially turns upon the interpretation of Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act and the Notification dated 30.03.2002. Entry 67 deals with petroleum products and includes lubricating oil, transformer oil, brake fluid or clutch fluid, bitumen, tar and others, while specifically excluding aviation fuel, LPG, kerosene and naphtha for use in the manufacture of fertilizers.
14. The scope and ambit of the expression “and others” occurring in Entry 67 is well settled in Indian Aluminium Company’s case (supra) the Apex Court has categorically held that the words “and others” occurring after the specified petroleum products would take within their fold petroleum products other than those expressly enumerated. It was further held that the very existence of an exclusion clause demonstrates the legislative intent to include all petroleum products except those specifically excluded.
15. The aforesaid principle was subsequently considered and applied by a Division Bench of this Court in Hyva India (P) Ltd’s case (supra). The precise question before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was whether Hydraulic Oil brought into the local area and used in tippers and dumpers was liable to entry tax under the KTEG Act. Following the law declared by the Apex Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the expression “tar and others” is wide enough to include Hydraulic Oil.
16. In the said decision, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after noticing the nature and use of Hydraulic Oil, held that the same is a consumable used in hydraulic systems and not a raw material employed in the manufacture of a finished product. It was further observed that no product emerges from its use and, therefore, Hydraulic Oil is liable to entry tax under the provisions of the KTEG Act.
17. The ratio laid down in Hyva India’s case (supra) directly governs the issue involved in the present petitions. The commodity under consideration herein is Hydraulic Oil itself and the issue urged by the petitioner is substantially identical to the issue considered and answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court is bound by the said pronouncement. The Tribunal has rightly applied the ratio of the said decision and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal.
18. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in Carl Bechem Lubricants (India) Pvt. Ltd’s case (supra), does not advance its case. In the said decision, the commodity under consideration was IPOL Cylinder Oil 1200. Upon examination of the material on record, including the test certificate and the manufacturing process involved, this Court recorded a finding that the commodity was base oil used as a raw material in the manufacture of grease and was not lubricating oil. It was in that factual context that the levy of entry tax was held to be unsustainable.
19. The ratio in Carl Bechem’s case (supra) thus turned upon a finding that the commodity therein was a raw material which underwent further processing before emergence of the finished product. The said decision does not dilute from the ratio laid down in Hyva India’s case (supra), which specifically deals with Hydraulic Oil and its taxability under Entry 67 of the First Schedule to the KTEG Act. On the contrary, the distinction drawn in Carl Bechem’s case (supra) between a raw material and a finished consumable product reinforces the reasoning adopted in Hyva India’s case (supra).
20. In view of the forgoing discussions, the present case stands on a fundamentally different footing. In Hyva India’s case (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that Hydraulic Oil is a consumable and not a raw material and that no product emerges from its use. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in distinguishing Carl Bechem’s case (supra) and in holding that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case.
21. Further, the Tribunal has rightly distinguished the decisions in Kluber Lubrication’s case (supra) and Merlyn Hydrocarbons on the ground that the commodities involved therein were different and the issues arising therein were not identical to the issue relating to Hydraulic Oil. The distinction drawn by the Tribunal is both legally sustainable.
22. The submission of the petitioner that Hydraulic Oil is not specifically named in Entry 67 also deserves to be rejected. Once the Apex Court in Indian Aluminium Company Limited and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hyva India have authoritatively interpreted the expression “and others” as encompassing petroleum products not specifically enumerated, omission to expressly mention Hydraulic Oil in the statutory entry becomes wholly inconsequential. The legislative intent is manifest and the language employed in the Entry is sufficiently broad to include Hydraulic Oil within its ambit.
23. The Tribunal on a comprehensive consideration of the statutory provisions and the binding precedents governing the issue, rightly held that Hydraulic Oil is a petroleum product falling within Entry 67 of the First Schedule and Sl.No.1(viii)(e) of the Notification dated 30.03.2002; that it is a consumable and not a raw material; and that entry tax is leviable thereon when brought into the local area for consumption, use or sale therein. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are fully supported by the law declared by the Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or error of law warranting interference in revision.
24. In view of the above, the questions as to whether Hydraulic Oil is covered by Entry 67 of the First Schedule, whether the expression “and others” is wide enough to include Hydraulic Oil, whether Hydraulic Oil is a consumable liable to entry tax and whether the levy affirmed by the Tribunal is sustainable, stand answered against the petitioner. The finding of the Tribunal regarding compliance with Section 6(1) of the KTEG Act also does not call for interference.
25. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
26. In view of the above discussions, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The CRP No.581/2023, CRP No.583/2023, CRP No.584/2023, CRP No.586/2023, CRP No.588/2023, CRP No.589/2023 and CRP No.590/2023, are dismissed.
(ii) The common order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, STA Nos.955/2016, 741/2016 and 334/2016, and order dated 11.04.2023 in STA Nos.948/2016, 950/2016, 951/2016 and 949/2016, are hereby confirmed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
