COMMISSIONER SALES TAX Vs. ASHA HANDLOOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted this common statement of the case under section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act relating to three assessment years, namely, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67 there are two references - one under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act - that is why there are four cases relating to three assessment years. The following common question of law has been submitted for the opinion of this court :

(2.) THE assessee, M/s. Asha Handloom, Sadabad Gate, Hathras, Aligarh, is a dealer in handloom goods including what are called durrets and gul durries. The assessee claimed exemption from tax in respect of the turnover of these two items on the ground that they were covered by the term "handloom cloth". This plea of the assessee was not accepted and the Sales Tax Officer treated durrets to be carpets and gul durries to be durries taxable at the rate of 3 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) held that durrets were not carpets if they were of the normal bed size but would be so if they are beyond that size. Similarly, he held that gul durries would be durries if they were of normal durry size covering a bed but beyond that size they would be bed cover. The assessee then applied in revision. The Judge (Revisions) did not accept the view of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that the nature of those two articles would depend upon their size. According to him durrets could not be treated to be carpets because of the difference in the process of their manufacturing. While carpets were manufactured by the process of inter-locking and knotting, durrets were prepared by the process of weaving. He also held that durrets were not durries because of the pile on both sides of a durret, whereas a durrie was a plain fabric. He accordingly held that durrets were neither carpets nor durries but an unclassified item taxable at the standard rate prescribed by section 3 of the Act. Likewise, he held that gul durries were also neither durries nor bed covers. Gul durries were also, therefore, held by him to be unclassified item. The Commissioner in this and the connected references has disputed the correctness of the finding of the Judge (Revisions) with regard to durrets only. His contention is that durrets are carpets within the meaning of notification of 5th April, 1961, referred to in the question.

(3.) THE Act or the Rules do not contain a definition of the word "carpet". Accordingly, the term "carpet" has to be understood in the popular or the commercial sense. This proposition of law is now well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. Reference in this connection may be made to Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, and Another ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 (S.C.)), where the Supreme Court while interpreting the word "vegetables" held that "the word vegetables had not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use, it must be construed in a popular sense meaning 'that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it'". The recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point is contained in M/s. Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. ([1970] 26 S.T.C. 339 (S.C.)). The same view has been taken by a Full Bench (sic) of this court in Avadh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer ([1968] 21 S.T.C. 295).