9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 pies per rupee and 3 pies per rupee, at which latter rate according to the petitioner "woollen carpet yarn" was properly chargeable to sales tax. The material facts are that the petitioner, British India Corporation Ltd., supplied woollen carpet yarn to Obeetee Ltd., a well known carpet manufacturing company in the district of Mirzapur during the assessment years 1948-49 to 1953-54. Sales tax was payable on "woollen goods and knitting wool at six pies per rupee under entry 3, List I, of Notification No. ST-117/X-923-1948, dated 8th June, 1948. issued by the State Government under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The petitioner collected sales tax at this rate from Obeetee Ltd. Subsequently, on 16th March, 1955, an objection was rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h May, 1957, refund was again refused. The writ petition was then filed in this Court on 6th September, 1957. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that consequent upon the decision of this Court reported in The State of U.P. and Others v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf(1), the mistake was discovered that sales tax, in excess of three pies per rupee had been paid under the mistake of law that woollen carpet yarn did not come under general goods but came under the entry "woollen goods and knitting wool," and that on the discovery of this mistake, the petitioner became entitled to the refund of the excess amount of sales tax paid. Two supplementary affidavits were filed, in addition to the affidavit originally filed with the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvince me that the delay was caused for any valid reasons. It seems to me that some kind of explanation has been spun out, merely for the sake of explaining away the delay. I am quite clear that the petitioner was wasting time unnecessarily. The matter may be examined from another point of view. The question about the rate at which woollen carpet yarn was chargeable to tax. depending upon the meaning and scope of the entry "woollen goods and knitting wool" was raised by Obeetee Ltd. as early as 16th March, 1955, nearly two years and a half before the filing of the writ petition. The case of Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf[1956] 7 S.T.C. 579. did not decide this question. It merely laid down that tax paid under a mistake of law may be refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded in the entry "woollen goods and knitting wool". The argument of the learned counsel is twofold: (1) that "woollen goods" cannot include woollen carpet yarn, and woollen carpet yarn is not included in "knitting wool". Therefore woollen carpet yarn does not fall under the entry "woollen goods and knitting wool". And (2), that even if woollen carpet yarn falls within "woollen goods" then by reason of the separate mention of "knitting wool" under the entry and "knitting wool" being admittedly one variety of yarn, it must be taken that the intention of the legislature was to exclude from "woollen goods" woollen yarn of all kinds other than "knitting wool" which it, therefore, specifically mentioned. Reference was made to the dictionary m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " separately. As already stated, the only reason for the addition of those words appears to me to be, merely by way of abundant caution to make the language of the entry fool-proof, and to avoid any possible chance of misunderstanding. It is true that "knitting wool" is a particular kind of woollen yarn, but merely because a particular kind of woollen yarn has been specifically added to the general description "woollen goods" it does not follow that other classes of woollen yarn, in this particular case, woollen carpet yarn, should be deemed to have been excluded from that description. The petitioner's counsel Sri Jagdish Swarup and the learned author of the book. "The Interpretation of Indian Statutes" has not been able to point out to me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Re Bank of London(1871) L.R. 6 Ch. App. 421, at p. 426. , Lord Hatherley said: "I do not attach much importance to the exception of insurance companies in section 27 of 20 & 21 Vict. C. 14. I think it is mere surplusage, and unfortunately such surplusage is not uncommon in Acts of Parliament." Learned counsel also sought to draw inspiration for his argument by a comparison of the language of this particular entry with the language used in some other entries in the relevant list. He was, however, not able to show to me how a comparison with the language of the other entries in that list helps him to establish his point regarding the meaning of the particular entry in this case. Accordingly, I must overrule learned counsel's submission, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
