SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THESE two references relate to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee disclosed his turnover of Rs. 10,45,339 for the year 1966-67 and of Rs. 9,82,170 for the assessment year 1967-68 of own manufactured bottles. The Sales Tax Officer accepted the plea of the assessee that this turnover was liable to tax at 2 per cent as an unclassified item. Subsequently, the authorities discovered that the assessee in the bills of sales had designated the goods as "jars". Thereupon, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed revisions on the ground that the turnover of "jars" was taxable at 10 per cent as glassware. The commodity in question was not "bottle" so as to be exempted under the notification dated 1st October, 1965. The Judge (Revisions) repelled this plea and dismissed the revisions. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the revising authority has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : "(1) Whether the additional revising authority was justified in law in holding the glass vessels manufactured and sold by the assessee which have no narrow neck and which were used for storing solids, pastes and semiliquids to be bottles ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the dealer himself has shown the sale of jars in his bills, the learned additional revising authority was justified in law in holding the sales of such vessels to be sales of bottles and the assessee was estopped from claiming that they are bottles ?"
(2.) THE notification dated 1st October, 1965, provides for a rate of sales tax at 10 per cent in respect of "glasswares other than hurricane lantern chimneys, optical lenses and bottles". According to the revising authority, the goods in question were bottles within the meaning of this entry and so they could not be taxed as glass-wares. The goods in question were produced for inspection of the revising authority. The revising authority held : "Samples were shown to me at the hearing of these revisions. The American jar was exactly like the phial of pomade vaseline. The honey jar was the common container of popular brands of honey in the market. The other samples resembled quink vessels or phials of some face creams. Of course, the samples had comparatively wider mouth. The long narrow-neck of the old fashioned bottle was generally missing. Some samples gave the expression of uniformity of girth." The Judge (Revisions) concluded that all the samples shown to him were ideally suited for use as packing materials and that they were commonly used as such material.
(3.) THE U.P. Sales Tax Act or the Rules, or even the notification dated 1st October, 1965, does not define the term "bottle". It is well-settled that the goods, which are in common use and are not defined by the Act or the Rules, should be identified as understood in common parlance : see Imperial Surgico Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1969] 23 S.T.C. 201). The learned counsel for the assessee produced a few samples of the commodity in dispute. It was noticeable that these goods were glass containers with an arrangement of fixing a screw top or cap on top.;