1998 (9) TMI 639 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Taxability of waterproof cotton canvas cloth under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Interpretation of the term "textile fabric" under rule 3(28)(a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.
3. Calculation errors in the assessment of measurements and sale proceeds of the product.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Waterproof Cotton Canvas Cloth:

The primary issue in this case was whether waterproof cotton canvas cloth is taxable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The applicants argued that waterproof cotton canvas cloth should be considered "textile fabric" under rule 3(28)(a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, and thus exempt from tax. They contended that the waterproofing process does not alter the fundamental nature of the cotton fabric. However, the Commercial Tax Officer, the appellate authority, and the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board held that waterproof cotton canvas cloth is a distinct commercial commodity and taxable. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, stating that waterproof cotton canvas cloth is not covered by the term "textile fabric" as defined in rule 3(28)(a) and is therefore taxable.

2. Interpretation of "Textile Fabric" under Rule 3(28)(a):

The Tribunal examined the definition of "textile fabric" under rule 3(28)(a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The rule includes various woven materials but excludes certain items like pure silk cloth, rubberised cloth, and waterproof cloth. The Tribunal noted that the Legislature has the authority to define terms specifically for taxing statutes, which may differ from their general or dictionary meanings. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "textile fabric" in rule 3(28)(a) has a restricted meaning, excluding items like waterproof cloth, which undergo additional processing after weaving. The Tribunal concluded that waterproof cotton canvas cloth, which is processed with wax, resin, and colors, does not fall within the scope of "textile fabric" as defined in the rule.

3. Calculation Errors in Assessment:

The applicants raised several points regarding errors in the calculation of measurements and sale proceeds of the product. They argued that the Commercial Tax Officer made mistakes in measuring the cotton canvas used and the quantity of the product sold, and failed to consider the opening stock of the product for the year. The Tribunal found merit in some of these contentions and noted that the abbreviation "Rs." was incorrectly used before measurement figures, creating confusion. The Tribunal also acknowledged the need to reconsider the assumption that the sale in the course of the year was confined to the products manufactured in that year. The Tribunal directed the appellate authority to correct these mistakes and reconsider the matter.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the assessing authority did not err in levying tax on the sale of waterproof canvas cloth, and the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities were not bad in law. However, the Tribunal remanded the case to the appellate authority for rehearing and correction of calculation errors. The appeal was to be disposed of within four months from the date of the order. No order as to costs was made.