9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e III to the Act (i.e., residuary entry). The opponent-dealer carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. As per its judgment dated August 27, 1981 the Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was correct and the article in question was correctly held to be falling in entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act and not within entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act. 3.. The assessee submitted application for making reference to this Court. The Tribunal, as per its order dated January 11, 1983, referred the following question to this Court for opinion: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale of Model 2030 chain sharpener was covered by entry 13 of Schedule III appended to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the said chain sharpener was not covered by entry 16(1) of Schedule 11, Part A appended to the said Act? Our answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reasons for our answer are as follows: 4.. Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding of fact the Tribunal held that the article was not falling in entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. 5.. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly followed the principles laid down by this High Court in the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in [1965] 16 STC 380 and in the case of State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Engineering Company, reported in [1974] 33 STC 302. In the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 380 (Guj) it was the case of the dealer that the humidifier used by the cotton textile mills in order to maintain certain level of humidity for the purpose of increasing the strength of yam was machinery used in the manufacture of cloth. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal had negatived this contention. This High Court held that humidifiers were machinery used in the manufacture of cloth. Learned counsel for the dealer submits that on the basis of the aforesaid decision, the article in question, i.e., model 2030 chain sharpener, should also be held to be a machinery use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue rather than the assessee. 7.. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Engineering Company, reported in [1974] 33 STC 302, the question arose as regards the meaning of the word "used" occurring in entry No. 15 which read as follows: "15. Machinery used in the manufacture of goods, and spare parts and accessories thereof, but not machinery and spare parts and accessories thereof specified in any other entry in this or any other Schedule." In respect of oil engines it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the actual user of the machinery should be taken into consideration. On the other hand the assessee contended that not only the actual user, but if the machinery could be used for manufacturing of goods, it should be considered sufficient to attract the tax. In short the question for determination before the court was: "Is it the actual user which determine the entry or all possible uses to which the machinery could be put to, that would determine the correct entry?" The court answered the question by saying that there was no warrant to equate the word "use" in entry No. 15 with the "actual use ". In our opinion this decision does not throw any light whatsoe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, reported in [1961] 12 STC 286, the words occurring in an entry of a taxing statute must be construed not in any technical sense but it would be interpreted as understood in common parlance. The words should be understood as they are used every day and must be construed in its popular sense meaning "that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it". Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, reported in [1967] 19 STC 469 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 1454 wherein it is stated that while interpreting taxing statutes the popular meaning and not scientific or technical meaning should be adopted. The same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1548 while dealing with an entry in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 11.. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts found by the Tribunal it is evident that the assessee itself has held out that model 2030 chain sharpener is meant for sharpening the chain sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
