SCIENTIFIC AND GLASS LABORATORIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this reference is whether glass "ampules" are "bottles" within the meaning of entry No. 6 (vii) of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (which is hereinafter referred to as the "act"), or whether they are covered by the residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E of the Act.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to this question are that the petitioner is a partnership-firm duly registered as a dealer under the Act. Its business is to manufacture and to sell ampules. During the assessment for the financial years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, the Sales Tax Officer held that the empty ampules sold by the petitioner-firm were covered by entry No. 6 (vii) of Schedule C of the Act. He, therefore, taxed the turnover accordingly. It is found that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax thereafter proposed to revise the assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer and issued notices to the petitioner-firm calling upon it to show cause why the ampules sold by it should not be held as covered by entry No. 22 of Schedule E of the Act and be taxed accordingly. THE petitioner-firm appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, and contended that the ampules manufactured and sold by it are bottles designed for packing medicines and liquid injections and, therefore, they were covered by entry No. 6 (vii) of Schedule C of the Act and, therefore, they were correctly assessed and taxed by the Sales Tax Officer. THE Assistant Commissioner negatived this contention of the petitioner with the result that the petitioner approached the Appellate Tribunal, but there also the petitioner lost. THE petitioner has, therefore, preferred this reference in which the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ampules sold by the applicant-firm are covered by entry No. 6 (vii) of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?"

(3.) IN order to seek an answer to the disputed question it is first necessary to see what is the dictionary or the scientific meaning which can be given to the word "bottle". Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the word "bottles" as under : "narrow-necked rigid or semi-rigid containers to hold liquids or semi-liquids. " It further states that it includes allied container forms, such as jars, tumblers, jugs, vials, ampules and carboys. It says that the material most commonly used in making bottles and these other containers is glass, although plastics have become increasingly important. This is the scientific meaning which is given to the term "bottles". But that meaning is obviously wide enough to include various types of containers. Now when we are considering a taxing statute such as sales tax, the meaning which is carried by a particular commodity mentioned in different schedules of the Act, would be that meaning which is attributed to it in the commercial world. The principle, which is followed by various decisions of the Supreme Court right from Ramavatar's case ([1961] 12 S. T. C. 286 (S. C.)), is that if the taxing statute does not give any statutory meaning to a word, that word should be given its popular meaning, i. e. , the meaning which is attributed to it in common parlance by people who daily deal with it as consumers or dealers in the market. The reason for this rule is that the sales tax concerns itself with commercial goods and, therefore, these commercial goods should be attributed with that meaning which is generally attributed to it in the market by the persons who are daily dealing with it. Under the circumstances, purely scientific meaning, which is theoretical and which is given from a scientific point of view to a particular article, would be of no help to use in ascertaining whether the article in question falls within the purview of a particular entry. This particular principle is followed even by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh's case ([1967] 19 S. T. C. 469 (S. C.)) on which Shri Mody, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has put reliance. IN Jaswant Singh's case ([1967] 19 S. T. C. 469 (S. C.)), the question was whether "charcoal" was included in the word "coal" specified in entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in that case that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific or 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. This principle is also reiterated by the Supreme Court in a comparatively recent decision given in Sales Tax Commissioner v. S. N. Bros. ([1973] 31 S. T. C. 302 (S. C.); A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 78), wherein their Lordships have been at pains to point out that while interpreting the words of the schedule, there should not be any straining of the language and that it is only the meaning which is attributed to the disputed word in the commercial parlance which should be given to it.