S TAJBHAI AND SONS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants carry on business as dealers inter alia in steel trunks at Rajkot. THE applicants are registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and hold registration certificate No. 56 RJC-672 dated 14th January, 1960. THE applicants sold two steel trunks one twenty-one inches long and other twenty-seven inches long in the course of their business under a bill bearing No. 03825 and dated 17th August, 1961, and submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the Act for the determination of the sales tax payable on the sale of the said goods. THE applicants contended before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax that the steel trunks sold by the applicants were not suit-cases within the meaning of entry 12 of Schedule E and were, therefore, covered by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E which applied to all kinds of goods not specified in any entry in any of the Schedules of the Act. THE Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax negatived the contention of the applicants and held that the word "suit-cases" was sufficiently wide to include steel trunks sold by the applicants and the said steel trunks were therefore covered by entry 12 of Schedule E and their sales were liable to be taxed under that entry. THE applicants, feeling aggrieved by this decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal also took the same view and hence the present reference.

(2.) IT will be seen from what is stated above that the only question which arises in the present reference is whether the steel trunks sold by the applicants can be said to fall within the category of goods described by the word "suit-cases", occurring in entry 12 of Schedule E. If they are suit-cases, their sales would be governed by entry 12 of Schedule E, but if they are not, their sales would fall within the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. The former entry prescribes a rate of eight naye paise in a rupee as against the rate of three naye paise in a rupee prescribed by the latter entry. The contention of the revenue was that the steel trunks sold by the applicants were suit-cases and were, therefore, covered by entry 12 of Schedule E. This contention was disputed by the applicants who denied that the steel trunks sold by the applicants were included in the expression "suit-cases" as used in entry 12 of Schedule E and contended that the sales were governed not by entry 12 of Schedule E but by entry 22 of Schedule E. This controversy between the parties raised the question as to what is the true connotation of the expression "suit-cases" as used in entry 12 of Schedule E.

(3.) APPLYING the test which we have set out above, it is clear that the steel trunks sold by the applicants were suit-cases within the meaning of entry 12 of Schedule E. One steel trunk was twenty-one inches long while the other was twenty-seven inches long. Both the steel trunks were easily and conveniently portable articles for carrying clothes on a journey. Though the depths of the two steel trunks are not set out in the statement of the case, it is clear from the two similar steel trunk produced by Mr. R. C. Mankad before us that the depth of the steel trunk twenty-seven inches long was not more than about eight inches while the depth of the other steel trunk twenty-one inches long was even less and this was in fact not disputed by Mr. R. C. Mankad. Steel trunks of this size are clearly articles for carrying clothes which are easily and conveniently portable on a journey and though they may not have the same finish and elegance as travelling bags made of rexine or aluminium and may be a little heavier than those bags, they still satisfy the test for determining what is a suit-case and must therefore be regarded as suit-cases within the meaning of entry 12 of Schedule E.