Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... vs Madurai Printing Tape Factory on 8 December, 1970
4. This entry has come in for consideration in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division, Madurai v. Madurai Printing Tape Factory (1) [1971] 28 S.T.C. 431. After quoting this entry, the learned Judges pointed out that the tape which was in question in that case was used generally in tying up bundles of papers, and is made of threads which lengthwise are pasted together, without employing the process of interlocking or interlacing the threads, as in making cotton cloth and the like. It was held:
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs East India Rubber Works on 10 July, 1973
6. Subsequent to this case, another Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. East India Rubber Works, Madras- [1974] 33 S.T.C. 399, considered the exemption under item 4 in respect of waterproof cloth, such as rexine, P.V.C. cloth, rubberised or synthetic waterproof fabrics, etc. They were all made with cloth as base. It was held that they were not "textiles" falling within item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The learned Judges observed that as the word "textiles" has not been defined in the Act, it must be interpreted according to its ordinary or popular sense, the sense in which they are commonly understood in ordinary parlance, and not in its primary or technical sense.
Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. A vs State Of Haryana on 6 September, 1978
Subsequent to this decision, there is the decision of the Supreme Court in Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1978] 42 S.T.C. 433 (S.C.). In that case, the commodity under consideration was dryer felts made out of cotton or woollen yarn by the process of weaving according to the warp and woof pattern and commonly used as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in paper manufacturing units. It was held that such dryer felts fall within the meaning of the word "textiles" in item 30 of Schedule B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and were therefore exempt from tax. There is a very interesting discussion, if we may say so, with respect, of what the word "textiles" means. Their Lordships pointed out at page 437 that the word "textiles" does not have any narrower meaning in common parlance other than the ordinary meaning given in the dictionary, namely, a woven fabric. The use to which it was put was held to be immaterial and did not bear in its character as a "textile". The uses of textiles in a fast developing economy are so manifold that "textiles" used even for industrial purposes would fall within the entry. Having regard to this pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is clear that it is not necessary that for the goods to fall within the expression "textiles", they must be used only as wearing apparel. They may be made out of any other material which is woven into a fabric so as to be used even for industrial purposes. The "hose" was produced before us. It appears to be in no way different from the cloth used for banians. It is only tubular in shape. It falls within the scope of the said expression. The result is, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly exempted the assessee's claim and the Board's order to the contrary cannot be sustained as correct. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
1