1995 (9) TMI 369 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of tax assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the classification of nylon zip for taxation purposes.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed a tax case appeal involving the classification of a turnover related to "nylon zip" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Joint Commissioner had issued a suo motu revisional order, determining that the turnover should be taxed only under a specific entry in the Act, rather than under multi-point levy. The assessing authority initially assessed the turnover at multi-point, but later revised it under a different entry. The first appellate authority provided relief to the assessee by opting for multi-point levy, which was subsequently overturned by the Joint Commissioner's order.

The Court considered the distinction between nylon and plastic articles based on previous decisions. Referring to the case of Importex International (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, it was noted that nylon and plastic, although sharing a petro-chemical base, are understood differently in the commercial field. The Court also cited the case of Beardsell Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which established that nylon twine and nylon yarn are distinct commercial commodities, even if derived from the same source material.

The Court emphasized the common parlance theory to differentiate between nylon and plastic articles. It was highlighted that nylon articles should not be considered the same as plastic articles, as evidenced by previous judgments. The Court rejected the Joint Commissioner's classification of nylon zip as a "plastic article" and set aside the impugned order. The Court also referenced decisions related to excise law to support the distinction between different materials, further reinforcing the conclusion that nylon zip should not be taxed as a plastic article.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner. No costs were awarded in this matter.