DY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tax Revision case is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No. 8 of 1987, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law). The main question that arises for consideration is whether 'air gun' is "arm" for the purpose of Entry 157 of the Ist Schedule to the Kerala General Sates Tax Act, 1963. The said entry reads "all arms, including rifles, revolvers, pistols and ammunitions for the same".

(2.) The respondent is a dealer in stationery and allied goods at Calicut. During the assessment year 1983-84, the respondent returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,45,712/- which was enhanced in assessment to Rs. 2,47,780/-. The only question raised by the assessee in the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the rate of tax that could be applied to air gun and pellets. The assessing officer brought to tax the said items at the rate of 20 per cent holding that they fall under item 157 of Ist Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 which reads as ''all arms including rifles, revolvers, pistols and ammunitions for the same''; taxable at the rate of 20 per cent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the conclusion. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that the item dealt with by the assessee cannot be classified under entry 157 aforesaid. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the State has come up by way of Tax Revision.

(3.) It is well know principle that if the definition of a particular expression is not given in the statute, it must be understood in its popular or common sense, that is, in the sense bow the expression is used every day by those who use or deal with those rules (See M/s. United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Others,- J. T. 1988 (4) S. C. 198, C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Taj Mahal Hotel. Secunderabad-1912) 1 SCR. I68, His Magesty the King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Ltd.- 1951 C.L R. (Ex.) 122: Two Hundred Chests of Tea, Smith. Claimant - (1824) 6 L.E.D 128, State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed 1977 (3) SCR 149 , Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana - 1979 (1) SCC 82 and other decisions reported in Indo International Industries v. C.S.T. 1981 (2) SCC 528 and Thillat Chidambara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate Asst. Commissioner - 1985 (4) SCC 30 ). It was also held in the decision reported in Saroj Aggarwal v. Commr. of Income Tax U. P. 156 ITR. 499 that facts should be viewed in the natural perspective and no hyper technicality should be imported.