Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Rajasthan Metals on 9 May, 2017
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, P.Velmurugan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.05.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
TAX CASE(MD)No.486 of 2006
The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the
Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Madurai Division,
Madurai.
..Petitioner
Vs.
Tvl.Rajasthan Metals,
2A,Lakshmipuram I st Street,
Madurai.
.. Respondent
PRAYER: Tax Case Revision is filed under Section 38(1) of the TNGST Act,
1959, to revise the orders of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
(AB), Madurai, dated 02.01.2004 passed in M.T.A.No.595 of 2002.
!For Petitioner :Mr.R.Karthikeyan,
Additional Government Pleader
^For Respondent :Mr.Ibrahim Ali
:ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] This Tax Case Revision has been filed by the State challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai, in M.T.A.No.595 of 2002.
2.This Tax Case Revision has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :
?Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods sold by the assessee can be recorded as pooja articles and classified as entry 7(3) Part-B of I-Schedule to TNGST Act, taxable at 4% or under Entry 6 part C of the I-Schedule, taxable at 8%?.
3.After hearing Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perusing the materials placed on record, we find that the Tribunal has rightly followed the decision in the case of Yadav Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., in 46 Volume STC 30. The question which arose for consideration in that case was ?whether ?Tagaries? and ?ghamelas? sold by the appellant therein are utensils and as such the turnover arising out of the sales of these articles is exempted from sales tax under entry 50 of the Schedule 1 of the MP General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as it was in the year 1963-64?. The Court, after considering the dictionary meaning of ?utensil?, pointed out that it is sufficiently wide enough to include any article useful or necessary in a household and the articles, which were involved in the said case viz., ?Tagaries? and ?ghamelas? made by hand without aid of power driven machines and sold by the makers themselves or members of their family, are exempted from sales tax. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
?4.Now, the ordinary meaning of the word ?utensil?, as given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, is as follows:
?Collect. Sing. Domestic vessels, appliances, and furniture. Chiefly Sc.-1535.
2.Any Article useful or necessary in a household; a domestic implement, vessel, or article of furniture; now esp., an instrument or vessel in common use in a kitchen, dairy, etc., 1484. b. Any vessel (or other article) serving a useful end or purpose 1502. c esp. A tool or implement used by artisans, farmers, etc. 1604. 3. One who is made use of (rare) 1678. 4. A scared vessel, etc., belonging to, and esp. used in the services of a place of worship 1650. 5. (Chamber) utensil, a chamber pot 1699.?
The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ?utensil? is thus sufficiently wide to include any article useful or necessary in a household. We see no reason to hold that the entry in question should be limited to cover those utensils only which are generally used in a kitchen. If roadside labour gangs employed in a construction work use the articles in question, those articles would not cease to be utensils on that account.
5.For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.?
4.The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case in MTA No.105/2001, the Tribunal took a view that the pooja articles made of brass and copper are domestic utensils. In the grounds of revision raised before us, the Revenue has not stated that as against the said decision in MTA No.105 of 2001, the Revenue has preferred a Tax Revision before this Court. Thus, following the decision in Yadav Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, cited supra, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, this Tax Case Revision is dismissed. No Costs.
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai Division, Madurai..