9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered that these items did not fall within item 4 of the Third Schedule as goods exempted from tax by section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment as made by him. The assessee took the matter on appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the several decisions cited before it, came to the conclusion that it is difficult to conceive of a textile shop selling rope or a person doing business of the type of the assessee selling any commonly accepted textile article like cloth in his shop just because he sells ropes. In other words, it proceeded on the view that a person requiring rope does not go to a textile shop to get these ropes an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... getting this kind of yarn, nor does one go to the assessee's shop for getting textile. The two varieties of goods are so wholly different that both cannot be grouped under "textiles" which would have to be understood in the ordinary and accepted commercial sense. The Supreme Court in a recent decision, Porritts Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana[1978] 42 S.T.C. 433 (S.C.). , pointed out that the word "textile" must be interpreted according to its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. Their Lordships referred to the Customs Tariff Act where there was a reference to "textile fabrics" and in connection with "dryer felts", which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of yarn, still they have undergone a transmutation into a different commercial commodity. A common man or a merchant would not call the rope "yarn". The type of ropes used for tying cattle or for passing through their nose or for being used as whips cannot be classified as yarn, so as to fall within the above-mentioned item. In Muthusavari Pillai Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu[1977] 39 S.T.C. 359 at 365., this Court had to go into the question whether cotton yarn twisted into bandings and similar ropes could be classified as "textile" or "yarn". In the course of the judgment, it was pointed out at page 365 after referring to the relevant authorities: "It is true that yarn does not lose its character as yarn merely by reason of its consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the expression. The observation was made in such a context. The Supreme Court has in more than one place in the said judgment pointed out that the expression should have to be understood in the popular or commercial sense. The purpose for which the commodity is used is often a guiding factor to determine its character. But, in some contexts, the purpose may not furnish a conclusive answer. Judged by these considerations, the ropes in question cannot by any stretch of imagination be classified as yarn. Under these circumstances, we do not find that there is any scope for accepting the assessee's contention. The revision petitions accordingly fail and they are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250; one set. Petitions dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
