STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KESHAVLAL AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises in this reference is whether a sale of 'vatkas' (utensils) of stainless steel would be covered by entry 20 in Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. That entry, as it stood at the material time, read as follows :- "Stainless steel articles (other than those used as parts of industrial machinery or plant)."

(2.) THE question arises out of an application made by the assessee-opponents to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the Act by which the assessees desired to have determination on the question as to what would be the rate of tax on the sales of stainless steel utensils purchased from a dealer residing outside the State of Gujarat. THE contention of the assessees was that utensils made from stainless steel would not fall under entry 20 but would fall under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Act. THE Deputy Commissioner held that such utensils would fall under entry 20 of Schedule E, observing that the word "articles" occurring in what entry was sufficiently wide enough to include utensils manufactured out of stainless steel. He observed that the Legislature, no doubt, had used in entry 2 of Schedule A to the Act the words "articles and utensils of kansa (bell metal)" but that it did so for the sake of clarity rather than for making distinction between articles on the one hand and utensils on the other. This view of the Deputy Commissioner was not shared by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assesees. THE Tribunal, however, conceded that there was considerable force in the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner and that normally an article would mean a particular thing and utensils made from stainless steel would be articles of stainless steel an would not cease to be articles of stainless steel merely because they were designated as utensils in popular parlance. THE Tribunal, however, observed that there was some scope for doubt whether the Legislature intended to give to the word "articles" its wide connotation and whether it was intended to mean an article other than an utensil. Relying on entry 2 in Schedule A where, as aforesaid, the Legislature has used the words "articles and utensils" the Tribunal felt that by adding the words "and utensils" in that entry the Legislature evidently intended to exempt utensils of kansa, i.e., bell metal, from tax, but that the Legislature presumably must have felt that the word "articles" might be construed in its narrower sense so as to exclude utensils. Consequently, its intention to exempt utensils made from bell metal might not be carried out and therefore added the words "and utensils" in that entry. In that view, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the word "articles" would have both a wide as well as a narrow meaning and that since entry 20 was a taxing provision the meaning of the word "articles" which was favourable to an assessee should be adopted. On that reasoning, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and held that utensils made from stainless steel would not fall under entry 20 of Schedule E and there being no other entry therefor, they would fall under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E.

(3.) THAT being so, we are of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner was right when he came to the conclusion that utensils made from stainless steel where included in entry 20 of Schedule E, and the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was not correct.