- (1.) Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, arising out of its order dated March 15, 1989, in respect of assessment year 1983-84. Whether the 'khair' wood sold by the dealer is 'timber' and taxable as such ?
(2.) Facts noticed in the statement of the case are: M/s. Panwar Timber, is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Assessment of this firm for the year 1983-84 was finalised by the Assessing Authority, Ropar, vide his order dated March 10, 1987. In this assessment orders, inter-State sale in regard to supplying of khair wood to M/s. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Limited, Khawra Road, Bahetgarh, District Sonipat (Haryana) against 'C' forms was taxed at four per cent and on this account additional demand of Rs. 16,241 was created. This additional demand included penalty and interest under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Sections 10(6) and 11(d) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, Against the orders of the Assessing Authority, dated March 10, 1987 an appeal was filed before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A) who vide his order dated May 30, 1988 dismissed the same. Still not satisfied with the orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala Division, Patiala, M/s. Panwar Timber filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, who did not interfere with the orders of lower officers holding that 'khair' is not timber in Punjab and is a wood used for the preparation of katha or for fire-wood.
(3.) The Tribunal examined the question whether the entry relating to "timber" included "khair" wood. It was held that in common parlance, "timber" was wood used in house construction as beams and pillars and could be used as planks like tables and chairs, while "khair" was not used for making material in construction of houses but was used for katha. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Krupasindhu Sahu & Sons v. State of Orissa, 1975 35 STC 270. Reliance was also placed on judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, 1961 12 STC 286, holding that if a word was not defined in the Act, the same was to be construed in its popular sense.;