COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P Vs. S R BROTHERS KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh is by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court answering the following question in the negative in favour of the respondent (hereinafter called the dealer) and against the Commissioner of Sales Tax, appellant :

(2.) THE dealer carries on the business, inter alia, of selling food colours and syrup essences. THE dealer also carries on the business of petroleum jelly but we are not concerned withs that item in this appeal : nor are we concerned with the sales of imported scents and perfumes which, according to the order of the Sales Tax Officer, were separately shown in the statement filed by the dealer, during the assessment proceedings for the year 1960-61. For the said year the Sales Tax Officer taxed food colours and 'syrup essences imported by the dealer from outside Uttar Pradesh under S. 3A of U. P. Sales Tax Act, 15 of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) treating them as imported colours and perfumes. THE figures of the dealer's trading account were accepted by the Sales Tax Officer. THE dealer, according to whom, food colours and syrup essence being unclassified goods were taxable under S. 3 and not under Section 3A of the Act, unsuccessfully appealed against the order of the Sales Tax Officer to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial); II Sales Tax, Kanpur. Further revision to the Court of the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Lucknow, also failed. It may, however, be pointed out that for the assessment year 1957-58 the Appellate Authority had, in disagreement with the assessing officer, held food colours and essences of syrup to be unclassified items and had granted the relief claimed by the dealer. Against that decision of the Appellate Authority the Department preferred a revision to the Court of the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. Both these revisions, by the Department with respect to the assessment year 1957-58 and by the dealer with respect to the assessment year 1960-61 were heard together and disposed of by the common order dated November 19, 1965. THE dealer's application for reference was, however, allowed and the learned Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax referred for determination of the Allahabad High Court the question reproduced in the beginning of this judgment. THE High Court agreed with the dealer's contention and held food colours and syrup essences not to fall within the entries at items nos. 10 and 37 of the Notification under S. 3A of the Act. THE reference was accordingly answered in the negative and against the Department. THE only question which now falls for determination is the one referred to the High Court and which has already been reproduced. THEre is no dispute about the turnover. THE dealer claims that on imported food colours and syrup essences the rate of tax should be 2 nP per rupee as unclassified goods under S. 3, whereas according to the Commissioner the tax should be 6 nP per rupee under S. 3A of the Act. Section 3 provides for liability to tax under the Act whereas Section 3A, which was inserted by U.P. Act 25 of 1948 and has thereafter been amended from time to time, deals with single point taxation. Section 3A reads:

(3.) IN our opinion the Random House Dictionary cannot serve as a safe guide in construing the words used in the List in the Notification in question for the purpose of deciding whether or not the words used in entries nos. 10 and 37 cover food colours and syrup essences: indeed this Dictionary is apt to be a somewhat delusive guide in understanding the meaning of the words and expressions with which we are concerned in the context in which they are used. This Dictionary gives all the different shades of meanings attributable to the words referred but that is hardly helpful in solving the problem raised in the present controversy. The words "dyes and colours" used in entry no. 10 and the words "scents and perfumes" used in entry no. 37 have to be construed in their own context and in the sense, as ordinarily understood and attributed to these words by people usually conversant with and dealing in such goods. Similarly the words "food colours" and "syrup essences" which are descriptive of the class of goods the sales of which are to be taxed under the Act have to be construed in the sense in which they are popularly understood by those who deal in them and who purchase and use them. The respondent's learned counsel has in support of this view referred us to some decided cases. IN Kishan Chand Chellaram v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer. Chintradripet, (1968) 21 STC 367 (Mad) a Bench of the Madras High Court held that Terylene, Terene, Decorn, Nylex etc., came within the expression "artificial silk" occurring at item no. 4 in the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. IN the course of the judgment in that case it was observed that the import and content of those words have not been defined in the Sales Tax Acts and the Courts are bound to have recourse to the meaning attributable to such words by persons who are dealing in and utilising such goods. The extreme, peculiar and scientific meaning of the goods which might sometimes deviate from the popular meaning, cannot prevail. The meaning which the trade, Government officials and statutes attribute to the words "artificial silk" was considered by the High Court to be the ordinary and popular meaning of that expression. IN Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commr. of Sales Tax, (1970) 26 STC 339 = (AIR 1971 SC 65) this Court held tooth powder to be a "toilet requsite" and liable to sales tax at a single point under S. 3A of the Act read with entry no. 6 of the notification, with which we are also concerned in the present case, it being observed that the names of the articles, sales and purchases of which are liable to be taxed, given in a statute, unless defined in the statute, must be construed not in a technical sense but as understood in common parlance. IN this decision reference was made to an earlier decision of this Court by five Judges in Ramvatar Budhiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer Akola, (1961) 12 STC 286 = (AIR 1961 SC 1325) in which "betel leaves" were not considered as "vegetable". IN Commr. of Sales Tax, M. P. INdore v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, (1967) 19 STC 469 = (AIR 1967 SC 1454) the word "coal" was held by this Court to include "charcoal", it being observed that, while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific or technical meaning of such terms, but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense. IN the course of the judgment, after referring to certain decisions, including the decisions from Australian, Canadian and English Courts, it was observed :