9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 7 - SCH - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - toughened glass manufactured and sold by the appellant - to be classified as glass and glassware or as an unclassified item subjected to lower tax? - HELD THAT - The nature and description of articles in Item No. 39 of the Tariff Notification, emphases the kind of goods which are covered and at the same indicate the class of goods which are not covered. In the opinion of this Court, the article manufactured by the appellant-assessee clearly falls within the description of Item No. 39. In TRUTUF SAFETY GLASS INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP 2007 (8) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT this Court had observed pertinently in relation to the same legislation held that The High Court proceeded on the basis that while interpreting the words glass and glass wares in the entry, it should be interpreted as it is understood by the persons dealing in them. It held that the articles manufactured by the assessee cannot be described as glass or glass wares. The view of the High Court would have been correct had the expression in all forms not succeeded the expression glass and glass wares . The judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not call for interference. The appeals are dismissed.
Issues:
The classification of toughened glass under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1998. Judgment Summary: The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether toughened glass should be classified as "glass and glassware" or as an unclassified item with lower tax implications. The trade tax assessment officer initially classified toughened glass as falling under the expression "All goods and wares made of glass" as per Tariff Item No. 39 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1998. However, the appellate authority and the Tribunal disagreed with this classification. The High Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, citing a previous judgment in "Trutuf Safety Glass Industries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P." (2007) 7 SCC 242. In "Trutuf," the Supreme Court had interpreted the Tariff Notification, emphasizing the expansive description of "glass" and "glasswares" in all forms. The Court explained the difference between "all kinds" and "in all forms," stating that the latter widens the scope of the entry to encompass the same commodity in different forms. The Court also highlighted the common parlance test in interpreting tax entries, focusing on the meaning attached to terms by those dealing with them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation that toughened glass manufactured by the appellant fell within the description of Item No. 39 of the Tariff Notification. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeals. The respondent was permitted to encash the bank guarantee and take further appropriate actions in the matter.
|
