STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MODI STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) THE findings of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal are that sataranjis are carpets. The Tribunal observed thus :

(3.) THE learned Advocates for both the parties do not dispute that carpets are mill-made fabrics and Sataranjis would come within the meaning of "fabrics". The law is well settled that if there are two separate and distinct entries, then both the entries must be so construed as to reconcile them. If carpets would come within the definition of "fabrics" as given in entry 33, then entry 40 will become redundant. The Legislature is not to be attributed with enactment of any redundant entries. It is not necessary to cite many authorities on this point. A reference to Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer ([1961] S. T. C. 286.) would be enough. In that case the Supreme Court was construing the meaning of "vegetables". As there were two separate entries, one for vegetables and another for betel leaves, their Lordships held that the two distinct entries indicated the legislative intent that betel leaves are not vegetables. The identical principle applies in the present case also. There being two entries, carpets in entry 40 are to be excluded from the meaning of "fabrics" as given in entry 33. The learned Tribunal missed this essential principle of construction of distinct entries in a statute. We are clearly of opinion that carpets are taxable as per entry 40 and would not cease to be taxable merely because by dictionary meaning carpets are fabrics as mentioned in entry 33.