Case: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited

before the High Court, did not controvert any of the facts mentioned by the respondent, vide paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court. The materials consist of certificates by Local Self-Government, Engineering Department, U.P., to show that the pipes supplied by the respondent were not used as "sanitary fittings". This certificate appears at page 34 of the paper book and shows that R.C.C. pipes purchased from the respondent had not been used as sanitary fittings by the L.S.G.E. Department. This certificate is signed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the Chief Engineer of the department. From pages 36-39 and 41 of the paper book appear he certificates given by certain reputed dealers in sanitary goods and fittings, who have categorically certified that the hume pipes are never recognised as sanitary-wares or sanitary fittings. As against this, the State produced no materials to controvert these facts, which could not be brushed aside. At page 40 there is a certificate by the Executive Special Engineer, Bombay Municipal Corporation, and Executive Director, Central Public Health Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, in which he has clearly observed that sanitary-wares and sanitary fittings are applicable to fittings used in the household for W.Cs., wash-basins, traps, sinks, etc., and, therefore, hume and R.C.C. pipes cannot be recognised as sanitary-wares or sanitary fittings. As against this, the State produced no material to controvert these facts.It is well-settled that when we are dealing with the articles used for business purposed, the terms must be interpreted in a purely commercial sense. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 at 288 (S.C.); [1962] 1 S.C.R. 279 at 282.), this Court, while construing the import of the word "vegetables", observed as follows :"But this word must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined in the Act and being a word of even day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. It is to be construed as understood in common language." 2. To the same effect is a decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada in King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited ((1951) C.L.R. (Ex. Court) 122 at 126.), where the court observed as followed :"The words fruit and vegetable are not defined in the Act and so far as I am aware they are not defined in any other Act in pari materia. They are ordinary words in every day use and are therefore to be construed according to their popular sense." 3. In these circumstances, therefore, we have to construe the expression "sanitary fittings" in the popular sense of the terms as it is used in our every day life. Thus construing, it would be manifest that there could be no question of use of R.C.C. or hume pipes, which are generally laid underground and are extremely heavy, for the purpose of use in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms, etc. By "sanitary fittings" we only understand such pipes or materials as are used in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms of private houses or public buildings. Even where a hume pipe is used for carrying the secreted material from the commode to the septic tank that may be treated as sanitary fittings. In the instant case, as there was absolutely no material before the Sales Tax Officer to show that any of the hume pipes manufactured and sold by the respondent were meant for use in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms and, in fact, the material was used entirely the other way, the Sales Tax Officer was not at all justified in holding that they were sanitary fittings. Of course, we must make it clear that if at any time the material produced before the sales tax authorities establishes that in a given case the hume pipes were meant for use in a bath-room, lavatory, urinal, etc., then the notification of the Government would be attracted and the assessee must be liable to be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent.Lastly, it was feebly argued by Mr. Manchanda that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and should have allowed the assessee to avail of he remedies provided to him under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, particularly when questions of fact had to be determined. In the instant case, the question as to what is the true connotation of the words "sanitary fittings" and whether the hume pipes manufactured and sold by the respondent were sanitary fittings within the meaning of that expression was a question of law and since the entire material on the basis of which this question could be determined was placed before the Sales Tax Officer and it pointed in one and only one direction, namely, that the hume pipes were not sanitary fittings and there was nothing to show otherwise, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition. Moreover, there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition where an alternative remedy is available to a party. It is always a matter of discretion with the court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is the settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. The High Court in the present case entertained the writ petition and decided the question of law arising in it and, in our opinion, rightly. In these circumstances, therefore, we would not be justified in the interest of justice in interfering in our jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High Court merely on this ground after having found that the order is legally correct. We are, therefore, unable to accept this contention. 4.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, the facts of this appeal lie within a very narrow compassIt is well-settled that when we are dealing with the articles used for business purposed, the terms must be interpreted in a purely commercial senseIn these circumstances, therefore, we have to construe the expression "sanitary fittings" in the popular sense of the terms as it is used in our every day life. Thus construing, it would be manifest that there could be no question of use of R.C.C. or hume pipes, which are generally laid underground and are extremely heavy, for the purpose of use in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms, etc. By "sanitary fittings" we only understand such pipes or materials as are used in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms of private houses or public buildings. Even where a hume pipe is used for carrying the secreted material from the commode to the septic tank that may be treated as sanitary fittings. In the instant case, as there was absolutely no material before the Sales Tax Officer to show that any of the hume pipes manufactured and sold by the respondent were meant for use in lavatories, urinals or bath-rooms and, in fact, the material was used entirely the other way, the Sales Tax Officer was not at all justified in holding that they were sanitary fittings. Of course, we must make it clear that if at any time the material produced before the sales tax authorities establishes that in a given case the hume pipes were meant for use in a bath-room, lavatory, urinal, etc., then the notification of the Government would be attracted and the assessee must be liable to be taxed at the rate of 7 per centIn the instant case, the question as to what is the true connotation of the words "sanitary fittings" and whether the hume pipes manufactured and sold by the respondent were sanitary fittings within the meaning of that expression was a question of law and since the entire material on the basis of which this question could be determined was placed before the Sales Tax Officer and it pointed in one and only one direction, namely, that the hume pipes were not sanitary fittings and there was nothing to show otherwise, the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition. Moreover, there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition where an alternative remedy is available to a party. It is always a matter of discretion with the court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is the settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. The High Court in the present case entertained the writ petition and decided the question of law arising in it and, in our opinion, rightly. In these circumstances, therefore, we would not be justified in the interest of justice in interfering in our jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High Court merely on this ground after having found that the order is legally correct. We are, therefore, unable to accept this contention.