9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hybrid-4, Shanker-4, District Baroda, 1975. They further contained the year of the preparation and a statement that there was a coat given of a poisonous chemical, etc., for the benefit of its purchasing members. The purchasing members had purchased those cloth bags for the purpose of selling hybrid agricultural seeds therein. While assessing the applicant to tax in respect of the above period of account under the said Act, the learned Sales Tax Officer treated the sale of cloth bags as covered by entry 51 of Schedule I to the said Act, implying thereby that the sales of cloth bags were exempt from sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, did not levy any tax on those sales. The order of the Sales Tax Officer is to be found at annexure 3 to the statement of the case. This is an undisputed fact, namely, that the Sales Tax Officer treated the sale of cloth bags as covered by entry 51 of Schedule I to the said Act. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, however, took a different view of the matter and exercised his suo motu powers under section 67 of the said Act. He was of the opinion that the cloth bags were not meant for domestic or personal use of its purchasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a personal or a private purpose and not for a commercial purpose and since the cloth bags were not meant for such domestic or personal use but were meant for commercial use, they would not fall within entry 51 of Schedule I to the said Act and were therefore not exempt from tax. In giving this interpretation to entry 51 of Schedule I to the said Act, it applied the principle of ejusdem generis. The Tribunal relied upon the two decisions, New City Printing Press v. State of Gujarat in Appeal No. 4 of 1974, and Vijay Buff Corporation v. State of Gujarat in Appeal No. 3 of 1966, in order to fortify the conclusion which it had reached for interpreting entry 51 of Schedule I to the said Act. Mr. S.L. Modi, the learned Advocate for the applicant-assessee, had appeared before the Tribunal also and he submitted before the Tribunal that it was a cardinal canon of construction of a statute that the words in the statute must be given their literal, grammatical and natural sense and that the other rules of interpretation are required to be considered only in cases when it is not possible to give a literal, grammatical or natural sense to the words employed in the statute. It was submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing to show that a wider sense was intended as, for instance, a proviso specifically excepting certain classes clearly not with the suggested genus." The passage from Maxwell is reproduced here as taken by the Tribunal in its judgment. We have reproduced this passage here because we are of the view, as we shall show later, that the passage from Maxwell does not help the interpretation put on by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further observed that "this is a case where the words articles prepared from any textile or handloom fabrics are general words which are preceded by special or particular words 'ready-made garments' and, therefore, those subsequent words of general import would take their colour or meaning from the preceding special or restrictive words". The Tribunal further observed in its judgment that on account of the proximity of the said special words in entry 51 of Schedule I to the said Act, it was justified in ignoring the omission of the word "other" and in applying the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting the above entry. In the result, even though the disputed cloth bags were articles made out of the relevant fabrics and therefore they would fall withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the relevant entry the words which are used are clear and unambigous and if we give the literal, grammatical and natural interpretation to the entry, there is no scope for giving an artificially restricted meaning to the word "articles". In other words, if we were to interpret the word "articles" as partaking of the nature of ready-made garments, we would be required to read the relevant entry as under: "Ready-made garments and such other articles as necessary for the use of readymade garments........" We find it impossible to add words in the concerned entry, and in our opinion, to do so would mean a flagrant violation of the canons of interpretation of a statute. With respect, the Tribunal had no basis whatever to interpret the concerned entry by applying the rule of ejusdem generis which has the result of giving a new meaning and import to the words used therein. It is to be pertinently noticed while closely perusing the concerned entry that after the use of the generic word "articles", the legislature had excluded from the meaning of the term "articles" hosiery goods and garments and articles to which entry 35 of this Schedule applies. The denotation of the word "article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady-made garments, the other interpretation is equally reasonably possible, namely, that the word "articles" can be given its natural meaning, confined only to the limits that they must be prepared from any textile or handloom fabrics and that their price must not exceed 10 rupees per article or suit. Subject to those expressed limits, the word "articles" must be given its plain meaning and any interpretative delimitation of the general word "articles" would be unjustifiable to the prejudice of the assessee. In our opinion, considering the matter from different angles, the Tribunal was not justified in giving a restricted application to the general word used in the concerned entry, namely, "articles". In the result, our decision on the question of law referred to us is that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the applicant's sales of disputed cloth bags were not sales of articles covered by entry 51 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Our finding accordingly is in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
