Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Sri Kittappa Dress Manufacturing And ... vs The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 30 August, 1961
10. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sri Kittappa Dress Manufacturing and Embroidery Works v. State of Madras [1962] 13 S.T.C. 34, while deciding the question whether choli bits and saris fall within the term "cloth" observed that the term "cloth" in accordance with its dictionary meaning and in its ordinary popular meaning has to be understood as any woven fabric or stuff till it is transformed into an article like dress, garment or bed cover, etc., which comes into ready use as such article, and after such transformation the article can no longer retain its previous state of cloth, though it is made of cloth. This decision negatives the petitioner's contention.
Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. A vs State Of Haryana on 6 September, 1978
In Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1978] 42 S.T.C. 433 (S.C.), it has been pointed out that a word requiring interpretation for the purpose of grant of exemption from tax must be interpreted according to its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. The meaning attributed to a word in its ordinary parlance has, therefore, to be accepted as its correct meaning, unless the statute itself gives a contrary indication. We have already pointed out that the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, does not define the word "cloth" and that the word "cloth" according to its popular sense and as understood in ordinary parlance means any unstitched cloth and certainly not a pillow cover even though it is made of mill-made cloth after cutting it to appropriate sizes for pillow covers and stitching it for that purpose.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs Sales Tax Officer And Anr. on 25 March, 1964
Shri Chaphekar relies on these observations to contend that pillow cases were treated in the same category as bed-sheets and bed covers described as "bed linen" and bed linen means cloth. It is sufficient to say that the point for decision in that case was not whether pillow cases fall within the definition of "cloth". It is, however, significant that while deciding the point which arose in that case, it was also observed earlier at page 1037 as follows :
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 10 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Radhika vs State Of Orissa on 20 September, 1976
11. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Radhika v. State of Orissa [1977] 39 S.T.C. 93 expressly held that where pillow covers were made by cutting mill-made cloth into different sizes and stitching and making them ready for use in a particular way and the operation was neither incidental nor ancillary to the process of manufacture, pillow covers would not be covered by the relevant entry relating to exempted goods and sales of pillow covers, therefore, would be liable to sales tax. The relevant entry in that case was substantially similar to the above-quoted entry 6, with which we are concerned and, therefore, that decision is a direct authority negativing the petitioner's contention. The test that the cutting of mill-made cloth into different sizes and stitching and making it ready for use in a particular way as pillow covers is not an operation either incidental or ancillary to the process of manufacture is, in our view, the correct test to be applied in such a case and with respect we concur with the view taken in this decision.
1