Case: M/s. Indo International Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh

liable to be taxed at 7 per cent as an unclassified item. But, negativing its contentions the entire turnover was held to be taxable at the rate of 10 per cent on the basis that clinical syringes fell within the expression "glassware" occurring in entry 39. Counsel for the assessee contended before us that in the absence of any definition of "glassware" in the Act that expression must be understood in the ordinary commercial parlance and not in any scientific and technical sense and if such a test were applied to the instant case then clinical syringes manufactured and sold by the assessee could never he regarded as "glassware". Counsel pointed out that the revising authority negatived the contention of the assessee in view of a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S. S. R. Syringes and Thermometers (1973 Law Diary 178.), but urged that the contrary view taken by the Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Janata Medical Stores ([1976] 37 S.T.C. 33.) that thermometers, lactometers, syringes, eye-wash glasses, etc., do not come within the meaning of the expression "glassware" in entry 38 in the schedule to the relevant notification issued under the first proviso to section 5(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, was correct. In our view counsels contention has considerable force and deserves acceptance.It is well-settled that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should he had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by. those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 (S.C); [1962] 1 S.C.R. 279.), the question was whether "betel leaves" fell within the item "vegetable" so as to earn exemption from sales tax and this Court held that the word "vegetable" had not been defined in the Act, and that the same must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance and so construed, it denoted those classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen garden and. are used for the table and did not comprise betel leaves within it and, therefore, betel leaves were not exempt from taxation. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh ([1967] 19 S.T.C. 469 (S.C.); [1967] 2 S.C.R. 720.), the question was whether the item "coal" under entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, included charcoal or not and this Court observed thus :"Now, there can be no dispute that while coal is technically understood as a mineral product, charcoal is manufactured by human agency from products like wood and other things. But it is now well-settled that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should he had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense." Viewing the question from the above angle this Court further observed that both a merchant dealing in coal and a consumer wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its geological sense but in the sense as ordinarily understood and would include "charcoal" in the term "coal" and held that "charcoal" fell within the concerned entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the Act. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid well-settled test the question is whether clinical syringes could be regarded as "glassware" falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act ? It is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression "glassware" is "articles made of glass" (see Websters New World Dictionary). However, in commercial sense glassware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like which have specialised significance and utility. In popular or commercial parlance a general merchant dealing in "glassware" does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles though made of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely that a consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware shop. In popular sense when one talks of glassware such specialised articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like do not come up to ones mind. Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the clinical syringes which the assessee manufactures and sells cannot be considered as "glassware" falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act. 5. In our opinion, the view taken by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Janata Medical Stores ([1976] 37 S.T.C. 33.) is correct and the view of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S. S. R. Syringes and Thermometers (1973 Law Diary 178.) is unsustainable.In this view of the matter it is clear that the assessees turnover up to November 30, 1973, will fall under entry 44 dealing with "hospital equipment" and the same would be taxable at the rate of 4 per cent and its turnover from December 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, will be taxable at the rate of 7 per cent as an unclassified item and the assessment will have to be made accordingly. 6.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]Having regard to the aforesaid well-settled test the question is whether clinical syringes could be regarded as "glassware" falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act ? It is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression "glassware" is "articles made of glass" (see Websters New World Dictionary). However, in commercial sense glassware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like which have specialised significance and utility. In popular or commercial parlance a general merchant dealing in "glassware" does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles though made of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely that a consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware shop. In popular sense when one talks of glassware such specialised articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like do not come up to ones mind. Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the clinical syringes which the assessee manufactures and sells cannot be considered as "glassware" falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the ActIn our opinion, the view taken by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Janata Medical Stores ([1976] 37 S.T.C. 33.) is correct and the view of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S. S. R. Syringes and Thermometers (1973 Law Diary 178.) is unsustainable.In this view of the matter it is clear that the assessees turnover up to November 30, 1973, will fall under entry 44 dealing with "hospital equipment" and the same would be taxable at the rate of 4 per cent and its turnover from December 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, will be taxable at the rate of 7 per cent as an unclassified item and the assessment will have to be made accordinglyIn our view counsels contention has considerable force and deserves acceptance.It isd that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should he had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by. those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 (S.C); [1962] 1 S.C.R. 279.), the question was whether "betel leaves" fell within the item "vegetable" so as to earn exemption from sales tax and this Court held that the word "vegetable" had not been defined in the Act, and that the same must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance and so construed, it denoted those classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen garden and. are used for the table and did not comprise betel leaves within it and, therefore, betel leaves were not exempt from taxation. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh ([1967] 19 S.T.C. 469 (S.C.); [1967] 2 S.C.R. 720.), the question was whether the item "coal" under entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II tothe Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, included charcoal or not and this Court observed thus :"Now, there can be no dispute that while coal is technically understood as a mineral product, charcoal is manufactured by human agency from products like wood and other things. But it is nowd that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should he had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercialg the question from the above angle this Court further observed that both a merchant dealing in coal and a consumer wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its geological sense but in the sense as ordinarily understood and would include "charcoal" in the term "coal" and held that "charcoal" fell within the concerned entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the Act.