2014 (10) TMI 449 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Classification of goods - Applicable rate of tax - Whether Gambier is catechu liable to tax at the rate of 4% or it is an unclassified item liable to tax at the rate of 12.5% - Held that - Applicant deals in Gambier, which is a non-edible commodity. Catechu is an edible commodity, which is specified in Entry-68 of Part-A of Schedule II to the Act. The assessing authority assessed to tax the sale turnover of Gambier as an unclassified item vide assessment order dated 19.10.2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. - If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined. In the absence of any definition of such term or expression in the enactment, the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. If a person goes to a shopkeeper and ask for Gambier, he shall not be given KATTHA. Merely because Gambier may be used to obtain Catechu or after applying certain process of manufacture it may be used as an alternate for Catechu, it cannot be called as Kattha, as understood in common parlance in India. The main use of Gambier and KATTHA are also different. While the general use of Gambier is in dyeing and tanning, the use of KATTHA commonly known to Indian people is its consumption with betel for chewing and also for some medicinal purposes. Gambier and KATTHA are not one and the same commodity and Gambier is an unclassified item under the Act. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Gambier is catechu liable to tax at the rate of 4% or it is an unclassified item liable to tax at the rate of 12.5%.
2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal is based on irrelevant material.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tax Classification of Gambier:
The main issue revolves around the classification of Gambier for tax purposes. The applicant argued that Gambier should be taxed at 4% as it is equivalent to KATTHA (Catechu), which is specified in Entry-68 of Part-A of Schedule-II to the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The applicant supported this claim by citing literature indicating that Catechu can be prepared from Gambier and that they are used for similar purposes.

Conversely, the respondent contended that Gambier and Catechu are entirely different commodities. Gambier is non-edible and mainly used for tanning and dyeing, while Catechu is edible and used in betel, pan masala, and medicine. The Tribunal's decision, which was based on a Full Bench decision and supported by the Chief Public Analyst's report, stated that Gambier is a non-edible commodity and different from Catechu. The Tribunal concluded that Gambier should be taxed as an unclassified item, at 12.5% for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.5.2009 and 13.5% from 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010.

The court emphasized the importance of common parlance in interpreting taxation statutes, noting that Gambier and Catechu are understood as different commodities by consumers and traders. The court cited several precedents where the common parlance test was applied to determine the classification of goods for tax purposes. Consequently, the court affirmed that Gambier is not KATTHA and should be taxed as an unclassified item.

2. Relevance of Tribunal's Materials:
The applicant challenged the Tribunal's reliance on certain materials, arguing that they were irrelevant. However, the court found that the Tribunal's decision was well-founded and supported by substantial evidence, including the Full Bench decision and the Chief Public Analyst's report. The court reiterated that the Tribunal had correctly applied the common parlance test and other principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

The court also referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments that reinforced the principle of interpreting tax statutes based on common parlance unless a contrary intention is explicitly stated by the legislature. The court concluded that the Tribunal's reliance on the Full Bench decision and other materials was appropriate and did not constitute a manifest error.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revisions, holding that Gambier is not KATTHA and should be taxed as an unclassified item. The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and ruled in favor of the revenue on both questions of law. The court emphasized the application of the common parlance test and upheld the Tribunal's findings based on relevant materials and established legal principles.