Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mohd. Ayub and Sons - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 122 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1982]50STC187(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentMohd. Ayub and Sons
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....manufacturers thereof like the assessee. he held that from those sheets which were at times frosted or fabricated, numerous articles like toys, chimneys, lanterns,..........of the case, the learned additional revising authority was legally justified to hold that glass sheets were taxable as unclassified item when a division bench of this very honourable court has held that the same were taxable as glassware ?2. before coming to the findings of facts recorded by the revising authority, it may be pointed out that the word 'glassware' used in the notification under which the department is attempting to tax glass sheets came up for interpretation before the honourable supreme court in indo international industries v. commissioner of sales tax, u. p. 1981 uptc 481 (sc). the honourable court held that 'it is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression 'glassware' is 'articles made of glass' (see webster's new world dictionary). however, in.....
Judgment:

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. On the facts found, the following question of law has been raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned additional revising authority was legally justified to hold that glass sheets were taxable as unclassified item when a Division Bench of this very Honourable Court has held that the same were taxable as glassware ?

2. Before coming to the findings of facts recorded by the revising authority, it may be pointed out that the word 'glassware' used in the notification under which the department is attempting to tax glass sheets came up for interpretation before the Honourable Supreme Court in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. 1981 UPTC 481 (SC). The Honourable Court held that 'it is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression 'glassware' is 'articles made of glass' (see Webster's New World Dictionary). However, in commercial sense glassware could never comprise articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, and the like which have specialised significance and utility. In popular or commercial parlance a general merchant dealing in 'glassware' does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles though made of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely that a consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware shop'. This decision, therefore, sets at rest the controversy regarding the meaning of the word 'glassware'. In some of the decisions given by this Court it was held that an article which was finished or semi-finished product could be covered under the expression. In other words only that glass which was used as raw material was held to be beyond the purview of the notification levying tax on glassware. The matter, however, having been settled by the Supreme Court what has to be seen is whether glass sheets are glassware in the commercial and popular sense. This is essentially a question of fact. The revising authority found that glass sheets were nothing but fundamentally glass out of which glasswares were made. He held that from those sheets which were at times frosted or fabricated, numerous articles like toys, chimneys, lanterns, etc., were manufactured and the expression 'glassware' could be applied or confined to such articles only. While arriving at this finding, he considered the various affidavits filed by the Bombay dealers and the assessee to the effect that in commercial circle glass sheets had a different connotation than glassware. He also found that not only these were two different items but there were different merchants' associations dealing in it and if a customer wanted to purchase glass sheet then he had to approach a different shopkeeper than the one who carried on business in glasswares. He found that not only the affidavit but even the trading community or Government of India drew the distinction between glass sheet and glassware. They were not taken as synonymous. On these findings, therefore, there could be no other answer than that was given by the revising authority that glass sheets were not glassware.

3. In the result this revision fails and is dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //