Sabyasachi Mukharjee, J. - (1.) THE petitioner applied for registration under the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941. the petitioner declared in the application in forms IA and IC that the petitioner was a reseller of processed paper and processed board. the Commercial Tax Officer by his order dt. 16th Aug., 1973 rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner dealt with articles which were notified commodities under the West Bengal (Sales-tax) Act, 1954 and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941. From the aforesaid order there as an application for revision and by the order dt. 22nd Dec., 1973 the Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes affirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and rejected the petitioner's application. THEreupon, there was a further revision application before the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, and by the order dt. the 23rd of July, 1974 the Addl. CIT has rejected the said revision application and affirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. THE propriety and the validity of the aforesaid three orders are the subject matters of challenge in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) UNDER the scheme of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941 hereinafter referred to as 1941 Act transactions or sales in respect of all commodities except those which are a specified in the first column of Sch. I are taxable but in 1954 West Bengal ST Act, 1954 came into effect, which was to impose a tax on the sale of certain notified commodities in West Bengal. UNDER s. 223 of the 1954 Act it is provided that nothing in the 1941 Act should apply to a notified commodity from the date on which the said commodity was notified under s. 25 of the 1954 Act. Sec. 25 of the said Act gives powers to the State Government to specify commodities taxable under the 1954 Act. The effect therefore is that while under the 1941 Act all goods come within the purview of that Act except goods which are excluded by the provision of s. 6 of that Act, under the 1954 Act articles to come under the 1954 must be notified or specified and those specified goods under the 1954 Act would by virtue of s. 23 of the Act go out of purview of 1941 Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid authority of s. 25 of the 1954 Act on 10th May, 1963 a notifications was issued making amongst others the following commodities notified goods : (1) "Paper of all varieties and descriptions, other than newsprints : (2) Paper boards and straw boards;" In 1967 there was another notification amending the said 1963 notification and in place of the goods relating to serial No. (1) of the 1963 notifications the following entry has been substituted :-- "Paper of all varieties and description, Except-- (i) newsprint, and (ii) hand-made paper that is to say, paper made by hand and not made or processed in any machine". Therefore, as a result of the said amendment of the notification under the first head, paper of all varieties or description except newsprint and hand-made paper came within the purview of the 1954 Act and went our of the purview of the 1951 Act. Similarly, under serial No. (2) of the 1963 notification Paper boards and straw boards continued to remain within the purview of the 1954 Act and outside the purview of the 1941 Act. The Sales-tax Authorities have taken the view that processed paper and processed board come within the variety of paper which has been notified under the 1954 Act as such the petitioner being a dealer in those articles was not entitled to be registered under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that on the 9th of June, 1973 the said Commercial Tax Officer, Shalimar Check Post, when the goods of the petitioner had been detained at the said check post that the articles imported did not come within the purview of the West Bengal ST Act, 1964 and, therefore, no permit was required. It was further contended that in the trade circulars issued by the Department it was intimated that such processed papers did not come within the purview of the 1954 Act. Counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to item 36 of r. 3 of the West Bengal ST Rules, 1941 as amended in 1963 which had excluded sales of exercise books, laboratory note books, drawing books, graph books, ruled paper and graph paper from the taxable turnover of a dealer, under s. 4 of the 1941 Act. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless these articles came within the purview of 1941 Act there was no scope of excluding them from the gross taxable, turnover. In the premises, it was urged that it was recognition of the legislative intent that these papers, namely, item included in item 36 of the said rule die come within the purview of 1941 Act. In the premises it was urged that the said goods did not come as notified goods under s. 25 of the 1954 Act, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to be registered under 1941 Act. Counsel further submitted that the Sales-tax Department being in doubt has issued the trade circular referred to hereinbefore and furthermore the Commercial Tax Officer in the letter referred to hereinbefore had also taken this view. Therefore, where two view were possible, the view which would be more beneficial to the dealer should be taken. It was further contended that 1941 Act applied to all articles except those which were specified or notified under 1954 Act. So, from that point of view applicability of 1941 Act was dependent on the residuary clause which was of the wider amplitude. Therefore it was urged that the petitioner was entitled to be registered udder 1941 Act.
(3.) IN considering this question certain broad principles have to be borne in mind. IN order to come within 1954 Act the articles must be specified by notifications; whatever was not notified or specified would not come within the purview of 1954 Act. Whatever did not come within the purview of 1954 Act would come within the purview of 1951 Act, subject the exclusive under s. 6 of the 1941 Act. A taxing statute and its provisions should be strictly construed so that its incidence was not extended beyond the sanction of law. IN case of doubt such interpretation should be preferred which benefited the person who would be liable under the Act. The intention to impose a charge must be shown by clear and unambiguous language used. The subject of the tax must be clear and the object of the levy must be definite. If the provisions were susceptible to two meaning, the Courts would prefer that meaning which was more favourable to the subject. See the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of West Gengal vs. Lala Chand Agrawalla, 77 CWN 910 and the decision of Anil Kumar Sen, J. in the case of Lalchand Agarwalla and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., 76 CWN 120 and also the unreported decision of mine in the case of INdian Tobacco Company Limited vs. Director of Entry Taxes, Government of West Bengal Civil Rule No. 2787 W of 1971. There must be a definite identifiable test in order to attract liability to tax and in the absence of any identifiable standard it would naturally give rise to the scope for arbitrary assessment at the hands of different authorities. Therefore, there must be a clear definition of an item which should be incapable of giving rise to a confounding controversy. There should be a uniform and definite test. See the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of INdian vs. The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., AIR (1975) (SC) 769 : (1975) CTR (SC) 40. Where, however, two alternative interpretations were possible of the scope and applicability of an object of tax and the taxing authorities adopt a reasonable view relating thereto which is favourable to the Revenue such finding of the authorities cannot be interfered with by High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution even though another view contrary to one adopted is in favour of the subject. See the observation of the Supreme Court in V.V. Iyer vs. Jasjit Singh, Collector of Customs and Anr, AIT (1973) (SC) 194. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind it is necessary to examine the finding of the authorities. The Commercial Tax Officer in his impugned order has referred to the notification dt. the 10th May, 1963 issued under the 1954 Act as referred to hereinbefore and observed that the commodities referred to in the notification were wide enough to engulf the articles dealt in by the dealer under discussion. It is not in dispute that both under 1963 and 1967 notification papers of all varieties except certain specified kind of paper which are not the types of paper dealt with by the petitioner, in the instant case, came within the purview of 1954 Act. It has also to be borne in mind that where no definition is provided in the Act, it is possible and often becomes necessary to accept the meaning given in common parlance or in the trade. The Commercial Tax Officer has referred to the statement contained in the Public Relation Officer's letter and has explained the circumstances and the background under which the Public Relations Officer issued that letter. The view expressed by the Public Relation Officer or in the trade circular cannot be conclusive or decisive of a matter when authorities under the law on the evidence and materials before them come to a finding contrary to the view taken in the trade circles or Public Relation Officer. The circumstances under which the Commercial Tax Officer wrote the letter dt. the 9th June, 1973 have also been explained in the affidavit-in-opposition. That is also in my opinion, not device and do not debar the authorities constituted under the Act to decide whether the petitioner dealt with the commodities coming under 1954 Act and the authorities below had the advantage of examining the samples of paper dealt with by the petitioner. They had also no evidence to the contrary that these articles were not treated or dealt with or understood in trade or in business or in common parlance as paper of a variety. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kores (India) Ltd., Kanpur vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (1970) 27 STC 126, and the case of Kilburn and Co. Ltd. vs. CST (1973) 51 STC 615 and also the case of STO vs. S.N. Brothers, (1973) 31 STC 302. Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pyarelal Malhotra and Ors. (1976) ISCC 834 : (1976) CTR (SC) 278. The Supreme Court there observed that the ordinary meaning would be assigned to a taxable item in a list of specified item and that each item so specified was to be considered as a separately taxable item for purposes of single pint taxation in a series of sales unless the contrary was shown. This principle, in my opinion, does not in any way affect the consideration of this case. The question in this case is ultimately whether processed paper or processed board come either as a variety of paper or as paper board as mentioned in the notification of 1967. The authorities below on evidence before them have come to the view that these do come within these items. If they come then they became notified and specified item under 1954 Act and as such the provisions of 1941 Act would not be applicable. In the aforesaid view of the matter it cannot be said that the view taken by the ST Authorities was not possible view and if that is the position, in my opinion in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution I cannot interfere with such decision. In that view off the matter, the petitioner's application for registration was rightly refused. The application therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The Rule nisi is discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. There will be no order as to costs.;