SURINDER SINGH,J. - (1.) SHORN of niceties, the blunt question for consideration in this appeal Under Clause X of the Letters Patent is the connotation of the word "carpet" as used in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The respondent-firm is a manufacturer of woollen goods, like blankets, shawls, etc. and also deals in the purchase and sale of cotton bed sheets. They are registered dealers under the Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to entry 30 of Schedule B to the Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana, an exemption has been granted for all varieties of cotton, woollen or silken textiles, but items like carpets, druggets, woollen durees and cotton floor durees have been excluded from this exemption. The relevant entry is reproduced below for facility of reference: 30. 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 Assessing Authority, while considering the case of the respondent for the year 1968-69, noticed that in the account of sales of textiles, a deduction had been claimed in respect of sale of carpets by showing the same in the entry of bed sheets. When called upon to explain this fact, the respondent took up the stand in the first instance that the item was bed sheets and had been shown under the said entry. Later on, by written arguments, it was urged that the commodity was meant for spreading over a bed or over a duree which is already spread on the floor and as the same was never used independently on the floor, it should not be deemed as a carpet. The contention did not meet favour with the Assessing Authority on account of two reasons, namely, that the dealer had himself named the commodity in the cash-memos issued by him as carpets and not bed sheets and, secondly, because the dealer had admitted that the commodity was normally sold in the market under the name and style of carpet. The Assessing Authority also held that the texture of the article was so heavy that it could not normally be used for spreading on the bed, but was in fact meant for spreading on the floor as a carpet. The authority further repelled the contention put forth on behalf of the respondent that as the disputed commodity was generally spread over the floor over a duree, it should not be deemed to be a carpet. Thus, the claim for tax-free sales relating to the carpets amounting to Rs. 28,605. 47 was disallowed along with some other items, with which we are not concerned in this appeal.
(3.) THE respondent went up in appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala, who, while agreeing with the interpretation placed by the Assessing Authority upon the word "carpet", dismissed the appeal, vide order annexure B to the writ petition. A second appeal was carried by the assessee before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, but again without success. The commodity in question was thus determined by all the taxation authorities to be carpet on account of the reasons already noticed above.;