Skip to content


Viny Pap Sales Depot Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C. No. 195 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1977]40STC317(Mad)
AppellantViny Pap Sales Depot
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu
Appellant AdvocateC. Natarajan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdditional Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the enumeration of a number of items, has stated in (iv) thereof 'all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified'.thus, it will be appreciated that this expression is in addition to the expression occurring in the opening part 'paper, all sorts'.therefore, there can be no doubt whatever that the legislature intended this entry to be of the widest possible amplitude. the very fact that 'coated board' has been included in the entry will clearly show that 'coated paper' should also have been intended to be included because the legislature when it thought that coated board will be covered by the expression 'paper' cannot be imputed to have thought that 'coated paper' will not be covered by the entry 'paper, all sorts'.we are of the opinion that the tribunal was right in..........; corrugated board, duplex and triplex boards, other sorts ;(iv) all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified, including carbon paper but excluding cinematographic and photographic paper :provided that, if any paper has suffered tax under any one of the subitems mentioned above, it shall not be again subject to tax under any other sub-item aforesaid.2. this entry clearly indicates that it has been couched in the most comprehensive language with a view to take in every type, kind or sort of paper, not merely those that have been enumerated in the entry. the legislature, not having been satisfied with the enumeration of a number of items, has stated in (iv) thereof 'all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified'. thus, it will be appreciated that.....
Judgment:

Ismail, J.

1. In this revision petition preferred by the dealer against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the PVC coated paper, which is the subject-matter of consideration, falls under entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Section 3(2) thereto so as to make the turnover of the sales of this item subject to single point tax. It is necessary for the purpose of deciding this question to extract the entire entry 117 of the First Schedule :

117. Paper, all sorts (including paste-board, mill-board, straw board and cardboard),-

(i) cigarette tissue ;

(ii) blotting, toilet, target, tissue other than cigarette tissue, teleprinter, typewriting, manifold, bank, bond, art paper, chrome paper, tubsized paper, cheque paper, stamp paper, cartridge paper, parchment and coated board (including art board, chrome board and board for playing cards); (iii) printing and writing paper, packing and wrapping paper, straw board and pulp board, including grey board ; corrugated board, duplex and triplex boards, other sorts ;

(iv) all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified, including carbon paper but excluding cinematographic and photographic paper :

Provided that, if any paper has suffered tax under any one of the subitems mentioned above, it shall not be again subject to tax under any other sub-item aforesaid.

2. This entry clearly indicates that it has been couched in the most comprehensive language with a view to take in every type, kind or sort of paper, not merely those that have been enumerated in the entry. The legislature, not having been satisfied with the enumeration of a number of items, has stated in (iv) thereof 'all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified'. Thus, it will be appreciated that this expression is in addition to the expression occurring in the opening part 'paper, all sorts'. Therefore, there can be no doubt whatever that the legislature intended this entry to be of the widest possible amplitude. Further, item 117(iv) after referring to 'all other kinds of paper and paper board not otherwise specified' also states 'including carbon paper but excluding cinematographic and photographic paper'. The very fact that cinematographic and photographic paper have been excluded will show that, but for this express exclusion they too would have been comprehenced by the other expression 'all other kinds of paper'. Hence, we are concerned with an entry which is couched in such widest possible terms. As far as the present PVC coated paper is concerned, it is admitted that the basic material is the paper over which a coat of PVC has been given. This PVC paper is supposed to be used in book-binding, manufacture of suit-case, jewel box, album, etc.

3. Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner-dealer, contended that 'paper' as used in this entry will cover only such papers as are used for writing, printing or wrapping and in this context sought to rely upon certain decisions of the courts. But, as soon as the learned counsel realised that the entries with which those decisions were concerned were couched differently and, therefore, those decisions will not be of any use in ascertaining the scope of the present entry, the learned counsel did not pursue the matter and concentrated his attention on ascertaining the actual and exact scope of entry 117 with reference to its own language. As we have pointed out already, with reference to its own language, entry 117 is capable of including within itself 'PVC paper' with which we are concerned. The learned counsel also pointed out that a perusal of the entry will show that only two items, which had been subjected to a different manufacturing process have been included, namely, 'coated board' and 'carbon paper', thereby showing that other kinds of papers which had been subjected to some other process will not fall within the entry. We are unable to accept this contention. The very fact that 'coated board' has been included in the entry will clearly show that 'coated paper' should also have been intended to be included because the legislature when it thought that coated board will be covered by the expression 'paper' cannot be imputed to have thought that 'coated paper' will not be covered by the entry 'paper, all sorts'. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the PVC coated paper in the present case falls within entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Consequently, the tax revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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