COMMISSIONER SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW Vs. BANARAS BEAD MANUFACTURING CO VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee manufactures and sells glass beads. For the assessment year 1957-58 two assessment orders were made in respect of the turnover of glass beads, one under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer held that glass beads were liable to tax under the head "glasswares" specified in Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, which levies a rate of one anna per rupee on the sale of goods by the manufacturer in the case of goods manufactured in Uttar Pradesh. He rejected the plea of the assessee that glass beads could not be described as "glassware". The appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment orders were dismissed by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax. The assessee applied in revision, and the revision applications were allowed by the Additional Revision Authority who took the view that all articles made of glass could not be described as "glassware" and that "glassware" in the notification referred only to glass utensils. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sales Tax References Nos. 244 and 245 of 1966 have been made for the opinion of this court on the question :

(2.) THE State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, made Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, declaring that the turnover of goods specified in the list set out in the notification shall not with effect from 1st April, 1956, be liable to tax in Uttar Pradesh except at the point of sale by the manufacturer and that such turnover would be taxed at the rate of one anna per rupee. The list mentions several items. Entry No. 15 specifies : "Glasswares other than hurricane lantern chimneys and bottles." It is urged for the Commissioner that "glasswares" here refers to all articles made of glass excepting those specifically mentioned in the list such as "glass bangles" at entry No. 16. For the assessees, Shri B. L. Gupta contends that "glasswares" must be confined to table ware made of glass intended for serving food and drink. The narrow definition ascribed by the assessees proceeds on the submission that inasmuch as glass bangles have been separately mentioned, "glasswares" must be given a limited meaning and it is not possible to include within that meaning all articles made of glass. It is said that if regard be paid to the entire entry "glasswares other than hurricane lantern chimneys and bottles" it is apparent that "glasswares" is intended to refer only to containers made of glass. It is pointed out that a hurricane lantern chimney is used in a hurricane lantern for containing the flame and a bottle is used for containing a liquid. The argument is that the exclusion of these containers indicates that "glasswares" refers to glass containers only. In the light of these rival contentions we must decide whether glass beads in which the assessees deal can be described as "glassware".

(3.) THE submission of the assessees is that the exclusion of hurricane lantern chimneys and bottles lends support to the contention that "glasswares" must be confined to glass containers. It is true that entry No. 15 in the notification of 31st March, 1956, speaks of "glasswares other than hurricane lantern chimneys and bottles". But subsequently this entry was substituted by "glasswares other than hurricane lantern chimneys, optical lenses and bottles" by Notification No. ST-1417/X-902(20-A)-56, dated 13th January, 1958. With the addition of optical lenses to the clause of exclusion it can be no longer be said that "glasswares" is intended to refer to glass containers only. The entry has been repeated in the same terms in Notification No. ST-1365/X-990-1956 dated 1st April, 1960. We have been referred to the dictionary meaning of "ware", and it is pointed out that while the general meaning refers to articles of merchandise, the specific meaning refers to containers or vessels and it is said that the specific meaning should be taken into consideration. It is said that if "glasswares" was intended to refer to all articles of glass the notification would have used the language "glasswares" of all kinds" as it has done in the case of cloth, chemicals, hosiery, oils and paper. The mere circumstance that the entry does not employ the words "of all kinds" after "glasswares" does not, in our opinion, mean that it must refer to glass containers only. There is no doubt, as we have noticed, that glasswares must be limited to exclude glass bangles, and when glass bangles are mentioned in an entry separate from glasswares we should not expect the notification to use the language "glasswares of all kinds". Apart from this, the omission of those words cannot, in our opinion, lead to the conclusion to which the assessees seek to persuade us. Having regard to the contextual setting in successive notifications, when at first hurricane lantern chimneys and bottles were excluded from "glasswares" and thereafter optical lenses were also excluded, it appears to us clear that "glasswares" was intended to have a wider connotation than glass containers merely. Then, it is urged that articles of glass are mentioned in other entries, and therefore, the scope of "glasswares" must be considered as amenable to a more limited application. Our attention has been drawn to entries such as "opera glasses and binoculars" in the notification of 31st March, 1956, to binoculars, telescopes and opera glasses" in Notification No. ST-3687/X-960(5)/57 dated 1st October, 1958, where another entry mentions "cinematographic equipment including cameras, projectors and sound recording and reproducing equipment; lenses, film parts and accessories required for use therewith" while still another entry specifies "all clocks, time-pieces and watches and parts thereof". It is urged that many of the articles mentioned in these entries are made of glass and consequently still further limit the expression "glasswares". There can be no dispute that if these entries refer to articles of glass they cannot be treated as included within "glasswares". If they are included in those entries it is because they form a distinct group along with the parent item, which may be clocks, time-pieces and watches or cinematographic equipment. To that extent the entry "glasswares" is limited. That still, however, does not lead to the conclusion that "glasswares" must be confined to containers. In our opinion, the entry "glasswares" must be taken to refer to all articles of glass except those specifically excluded in the entry and except glass bangles and articles of glass which can be considered as falling within other entries.