STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ORIENTAL AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the Board of Revenue under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, whereunder the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court : " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the turnover of Rs. 5,464 being of hoses is livable to tax at general rate of 6 per cent or at 10 per cent. " M/s. Oriental Agencies, respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). For the period 1st July, 1966 to 30th June, 1967 the turnover of the assessee included the sales of rubber hoses amounting to Rs. 5,464. The Commercial Taxes Officer was of the view that rubber hoses were taxable at the rate of 10 per cent under entry 77 of notification dated 2nd November, 1965 and entry No. 63 of the notification dated 29th May, 1967. The Commercial Taxes Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that the rubber hoses fell in the residual entry and were taxable at general rate of 6 per cent. The Deputy Commissioner affirmed the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer in appeal. The Board of Revenue held that rubber hoses were chargeable at general rate of 6 per cent and were not covered by entry No. 77 of notification dated 2nd November, 1965 and entry No. 63 of notification dated 29th May 1967. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, the department moved the Board of Revenue for referring the question of law arising out of the order of the Board of Revenue to this Court and thereupon the Board of Revenue has referred the question mentioned above to this Court.

(2.) ENTRY No. 77 of the notification dated 2nd November, 1965 and entry No. 63 of the notification dated 29th May, 1967 were identical and they were as under :- " All types of sanitary goods and fittings and all types of pipes and pipe fittings. " The submission of Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the department was that the words "all types of pipes and pipe fittings" are words of wide amplitude and they would cover every type of pipe including rubber hose, which is also a pipe. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Sharma has placed reliance on the definition of "hose" as contained in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the assessee, has on the other hand placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. G. S. Pai & Co. [1980] 45 STC 58 and the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Truel Tubes [1980] 46 STC 473, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. IISCO Station Pipe and Foundry Co. Ltd. [1982] 50 STC 207 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Mandsaur Cement Pipe Factory [1983] 54 STC 112 and the decision of the Kerala High Court in Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam v. Equipment Agencies [1981] 47 STC 68.

(3.) RUBBER hose pipes would not be covered by the words "all types of pipes and pipe fittings" also for the reason that the word "fitting", as explained by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. G. S. Pai & Co. [1980] 45 STC 58 (SC), is intended to refer to articles or things which are fitted or fixed to the floor or walls of a building and may, in a given case, include even articles or materials fitted or fixed outside, provided they can be considered as attached or auxiliary to the building or part of it. A rubber hose pipe is not used for the purpose of fitting or fixing to the floor or wall of a building. RUBBER hose pipe would therefore, not be covered by the expression of "all types of pipes and pipe fittings" as contained in entries Nos. 77 and 63, referred to above.