CHUNILAL HARAKCHAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS and the following reference raise the same petition and involve the same facts, except that the assessment period in the first reference is from April 1, 1956, to March 31, 1957, and in the second reference it is from April 1, 1957, to October 23, 1957. The common question involved in both the references is whether palavs, admittedly woven on handlooms out of cotton and silk yarn and jari thread and which are generally attached to sari pieces for decorating saris, fall under entry 47(i) of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The applicants produced certain samples of palavs before the taxing authorities. There is no dispute that they are of standard sari length, are used for attaching them widthwise to the sari pieces and vary in width from eight inches to thirty-two inches, unlike borders or laces which also are attached to sari pieces but lengthwise.

(2.) THE Sales Tax Officer held that palavs fall under entry 47(i) of Schedule B and subjected to purchase tax the purchases of palavs made by the applicants from unregistered dealers. His order was upheld by the Assitant Commissioner who held that palavs, though differently called, were nothing else but borders attached to saris. THE Deputy Commissioner also held that though the palavs produced before the authorities were woven on handlooms with varying width, they were used in the same manner as borders or trimmings and that they were not capable of being used independently so as to be understood in common parlance as handloom cloth. He observed that though palavs were woven on handlooms like cloth, they had acquired a special meaning and no one would ordinarily describe them as cloth and that entry 47(i) was wide enough to cover the palavs in question. In a further appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal held that the use to which cloth is put to would be irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether it is cloth or not and that the palavs in question, inasmuch as they were woven on handloom, would be handloom cloth though independently they cannot be sued as garments or saris. THE Tribunal, however, was of the view that entry 10 of Schedule B relating to handloom cloth was a general entry while entry 47(i) was a special entry relating to braids, borders, laces and trimmings and that therefore it would be that special entry which would apply and on that basis, affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. THE Tribunal also held that palavs mean borders, laces or trimmings also in popular parlance and therefore would fall under entry 47(i) of Schedule B.

(3.) THAT being so, we agree with the Tribunal that a palav piece would fall within the ambit of entry 47(i) of Schedule B to the Act. In that view, our answer to question No. 1 would be in the affirmative. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, Mr. Mody himself stated that if a palav is covered by entry 47(i), question No. 2 would not arise and, at any rate, would not become necessary. Since in our view a palav falls under entry 47(i), the further question, whether entry 47(i) would prevail over entry 10 of Schedule B need not arise. THAT being so, it is not necessary for us to answer question No. 2. The applicants will pay to the respondent in each of the two references the costs of the reference.