- (1.) J:- The short question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether 'dryer felts' manufactured by the assessee fall within the category of "all varieties of cotton, woollen or silken taxtiles" specified in Item 30 of Schedule 'B' of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). If they are covered by this description, they would be exempt from Sales Tax imposed under the provisions of the Act, otherwise they would be liable to sales tax. The assessing authorities held that the 'driver felts' manufactured by the assessee were not textiles" within the meaning of Item 30 of Schedule 'B' and they were, therefore, not exempt from sales tax. The Tribunal, on appeal, also took the same view and rejected the claim of the assessee to exemption from sales tax in respect of sales of 'driver felts'. The assessee thereupon moved the Tribunal for making a reference to the High Court and on this application, the following question of law was referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the products manufactured by the petitioner are not covered by Item 30 of Schedule 'B' of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and therefore, not exempt from sales tax both under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the General Sales Tax Act, 1956." The Reference was heard by a Division Bench and on a difference of opinion between the two Judges constituting the Division Bench, the Reference was placed before a third Judge. The third Judge held that 'driver felts' were not included in the expression 'textiles' occurring in Item 30 of Schedule 'B' of the Act and were, therefore, not exempt from sales tax and on this view the question referred to the High Court was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
(2.) It is clear from Section 5 sub-section (1) of the Act that it levys sales tax on the taxable turnover of a dealer subject to the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 defines "taxable turnover" to mean that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom inter alia his turnover on the sale of goods declared tax free under Section 6. Section 6 provides that no tax should be payable on the sale of goods specified in the first column of Schedule 'B' subject to the conditions and exception, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof and no dealer shall charge sales tax on the sale of goods which are declared tax-free from time to time under this Section. Schedule 'B' sets out in the first column, various categories of goods which are declared tax-free under Section 6 and Item 30 specifies the following category of tax-free goods : "All varieties of cotton, woollen or silken textiles including rayon, artificial silk or nylon whether manufactured by handloom or powerloom or otherwise but not including pure silk fabrics, carpets, druggets, woollen durees and cotton floor durees." The question is : whether 'dryer felts' manufactured by the assessee fell within the category of goods so as to be exempt from sales tax Can it be said that 'dryer felts' constitutes a variety of cotton or woollen textiles The answer to the question depends on what is the true meaning of the word 'textiles' as used in Item 30 of Schedule 'B'.
(3.) Now, the word 'textiles' is not defined in the Act, but it is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court, of which we may mention only a few, namely, Ramavater Budhaiprasad v. Asst. Sales Tax Officer, Akola, AIR 1961 SC 1325 and M/s. Motipur Jamindarry Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 660 and State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed, (1977) 3 SCR 149 : (AIR 1977 SC 1638) that in a taxing statute words of everyday use must be construed not in their scientific or technical sense but as understood in common parlance. The question which arose in Ramavater's case (supra) was whether betel leaves are vegetables and this Court held that they are not included within that term. This Court quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants' Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. State of Madh Pra, 7 STC 99 at p. 102 : (AIR 1956 Nag 54 at p. 55): "In our opinion, the word "vegetables" cannot be given the comprehensive meaning the term bears in natural history and has not been given that meaning in taxing statutes before. The term "vegetables" is to be understood as commonly understood denoting those classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen gardens and are used for the table" and observed that "the word 'vegetables' in taxing statutes is to be understood as in common parlance i.e. denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table". The meaning of the word 'vegetables' was reiterated in M/s. Motipur Jamindary case where sugar cane was held not to fall within the definition of the word 'vegetables' and the same meaning was given to the word 'vegetables' in Washi Ahmed's case (supra) where green ginger was held to be 'vegetables' within the meaning of that word as used in common parlance.;