SAFARI SALES P LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two revisions, filed by two assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, the Act), the only question raised is whether suit cases, brief cases, etc. , made out of plastic can be taxed under Entry 88 or Entry 89 of the 1st Schedule to the Act as it stood at the relevant time at 10 percent or whether the said suit cases, brief cases, etc. will fail only under Entry 156 of the 1st Schedule to the Act as contended by the assessees taxable at 8 percent. We are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by a majority, held that the turnover relating to suit cases, brief cases, etc. made out of plastic is liable to be taxed under Entry 88 of the 1st Schedule to the Act at 10 percent at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under s. S of the Act. The said decision is challenged by the assessees in these revisions.

(2.) WE beard counsel for the revision petitioners Mr. K. Sankaran, as also counsel for the Revenue Mr. N. N. Divakaran Pillai. In order to understand the rival contentions of the parties, it is useful to quote the relevant entries of the Act. They are as follows: The revision petitioners contend that the suit cases, brief cases, etc. sold by them, are essentially "plastic moulded luggage" and so they will be "articles made of plastics" and can be taxed only at 8 per cent. According to the Revenue, all kinds of suit cases, brief cases, etc. , when sold at a price of Rs. 50/- and above, will come within entry 88 of the 1st Schedule and can be taxed at 10 per cent.

(3.) IT is settled law that in interpreting the provisions of an Act, the entire Act should be considered as a whole and interpreted reasonably and fairly. See ITtoop v. Mathunni (1985 KLT 1097-F. B.) (1101-1102 ). How the relevant words occurring in the entries of the taxing statutes should be construed or interpreted, has been laid down in a series of decisions. One of us (Paripornan J.) had occasion to consider the matter in Purushotham gokuldas Plywood Co. case (1983 KLT SN page 21 (O. P. No. 997/1980) and Mysore essential Oil Industries case (1984 KLT SN (O. P. No. 4475/ 1984 ). In the later case it has been held: "it is true that for determining as to whether a particular item falls within a particular entry or not, or as to whether it is governed by a particular entry, the authorities have to find out on the basis of relevant facts, bow it is understood is common parlance or in the commercial world or trade circle. This is the ordinary rule. In so doing, one can refer to the dictionary. But that will not prevail or be conclusive. This is so only if the relevant word used in the taxing statute is one of every day use. In that case alone, it must be construed as understood in common parlance and it must be given its popular sense, meaning thereby that sense which people convergent with the subject matter with which a statute is dealing would attribute to it. The test should not be applied as a "wooden rule" or "mechanically". The said rule is subject to variation is special or particular cases which calls for a different approach. If the Act is one passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and the words are used by which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows and understands to have a particular meaning, in those cases, the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning, though it may differ from the common or ordinary meaning of the words,"