- (1.) In these petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 10-9-1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition 2919 of 1985 and Misc. Petition No. 413 of 1985 respectively. The appeals raise a short and interesting question whether stacks of "eucalyptus-wood" sold by the forest-department after separating the "Ballies" and "Poles" constitute and answer the description of 'Timber' under entry 32A of Part II of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (the 'Act'). The High Court, rejecting the appellant's contention that what was sold, being leftovers after the extraction of "Poles" and "Ballies" of Eucalyptus (Nilgiri) Trees, was merely 'fire-wood' within the meaning of and attracting entry No. 12 of Part V of Schedule II of the Act, held that the goods were "Timber" under the said entry 32A. It was, accordingly, held that appellants were liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% ad valorem.
(2.) Special leave is granted in both the cases. The appeals are taken-up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. We have heard Shri G. L. Sanghi, Senior counsel and Shri A. K. Sanghi for the appellants and Shri T. C. Sharma for the respondents.
(3.) Though, the notifications inviting tenders and certain other documents appear to describe the goods variously as "eucalyptus fire-wood stacks", "eucalyptus-wood stacks", 'Nilgiri fuel wood' etc., the nomenclature is not determinative or conclusive of the nature of the "goods" which will have to be determined by the application of certain well-settled principles, guiding the matter. Three entries as they then stood in the Schedule to the 'Act' were pointed out by learned counsel as the possible alternatives : Schedule II Part II Entry 32A : Timber .... 16% Part V Entry 12 : Fire-wood and charcoal ... 3% Part VI Entry 1 : All other goods not included in Schedule I or any other part of the Schedule .... 10% Appellant's contention urged before the High Court - and reiterated before us - was that what was sold were the leftovers and remnant of eucalyptus trees after the extraction of the substantial timber in the form of "Poles" and "Ballies" and that even on the basis of what the forest-department itself described the goods to be while putting the 'goods' to tender, the goods were 'fire-wood heaps'. It was urged that having regard to the well-known concept of what constitutes 'Timber' the wood-stacks sold could, by no stretch of imagination, be held to answer the description of 'Timber'. The wood sold, was, it was said, "fire-wood" or at all events, plain 'wood' not amounting to 'Timber' or 'fire-wood' in which case the goods fall within the residuary- entry. This contention did not find favour with the High Court.;