TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch rate, not exceeding ten paise in a rupee, as may be so notified, may be levied on the sale of luxury goods as specified in Schedule A appended to this Act from such date as the State Government may by notification direct. The State Government after giving by notification not less than thirty days' notice of its intention so to do may by like notification add to, or delete from, this schedule, and thereupon this schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly." Subsequently, some changes have been made by the Haryana State with regard to the rate or the period for which the notice is to be given. However, this does not in any way affect the matter before us. The sole point for decision before us is, whether, if an article is specified by the State Government in Schedule A not specifically, but only in a generic form and then a question arises, whether a particular article answering that general description is a "luxury goods" and, therefore, liable to tax at the enhanced rate, as provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, the question can be gone into by this court. In L.P.A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 1973, the goods in dispute are dhoop and agarbatti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 973) by the department. Similarly, Messrs. Science House, Gokal Road, Ludhiana, who are respondents in L.P.A. No. 126 of 1973, were assessed to sales tax at a higher rate in regard to sale of goods like "beakers, test tubes, flasks, jars, graduated cylinders, condensers, etc.", which were used by the school and college laboratories for educational purposes, as being covered by entry No. 23 of Schedule A, being glassware. The assessee filed Civil Writ No. 3008 of 1972 and another learned single Judge came to the conclusion that they are certainly glassware, but as the same are not luxury goods, sales tax at the enhanced rate cannot be imposed. The learned judge followed the decision given in Civil Writs Nos. 703 and 704 of 1972 (Messrs. Amir Chand Om Parkash v. Assessing Authority[1973] 31 S.T.C. 232.), noted above. The department has filed L.P.A. No. 126 of 1973 against that order. In Civil Writs Nos. 703 and 704 of 1972, the learned single Judge reproduced the definition of "luxury" given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms: "Habitual use of what is choice or costly, whether food, dress, furniture, or appliances. Refined and intense enjoyment. Sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by giving a general description, like glassware, glazedware, leather goods, perfumery, etc. In the appeals before us as well as in the sales tax reference, with which we shall deal separately, the items in dispute are not specifically included and, therefore, we are not concerned with a case where a specific item is included in the schedule and the question arises whether such an article is or is not a luxury goods, and we express no opinion with regard to that matter. Here the items are mentioned in a general way of which there may be a number of categories. Words "perfumery" and "glassware" would cover a very large number of goods, some of which would obviously be items of luxury whereas others, which are used by the ordinary man as a necessity or for educational or other purposes, could not be treated as "luxury goods" in the ordinary sense of the term. Apart from the question of schedule, nobody would ever treat glass flasks, beakers and test tubes, which are used in the school and college laboratories for experiments and making tests, as something of "choice or costly" or meant for "refined and intense enjoyment " or otherwise "exquisite food or surroundings". In fact, gla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is specified in Schedule A would be liable to enhanced tax, irrespective of the fact whether in the ordinary parlance it cannot be treated as an item of "luxury goods". We are afraid we cannot accept this argument. As is now well-settled, meaning must be attributed to every word used by the Legislature and, therefore, full meaning must be given to the words "luxury goods". In fact, this is a taxing statute and if there are two interpretations possible, the one, which is favourable to the taxpayer, has to be adopted. We are, therefore, definitely of the view that when an entry is made in Schedule A in the form of a generic term, then it is open to the court to decide, whether a particular item answering that general description is or is not a "luxury item". If it is a "luxury item", then it would be liable to the enhanced rate of tax. On the other hand, if it is not a "luxury item", then it would not be liable to the enhanced tax and where there is any doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the taxpayer. So far as dhoop and agarbatti are concerned, there is another way of looking at the matter. The entry (i.e., entry No. 16) is "cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a number of decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He was not, however, able to show to us that the provisions of the Act there were similar to the Act in Punjab with which we are concerned. In fact, the discussion in the cases referred to by the learned counsel makes it clear that there the relevant part of the taxing section only provided that a higher rate will be paid on goods in a particular schedule or part of the schedule. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Mohanlal Ramkisan Nathani, Raipur[1955] 6 S.T.C. 136., "glassware" were included in a particular schedule imposing higher rate of tax and the question for consideration was, whether glass panes used in windows would come within the category of "glassware". The same was the point in Tribuwandas Gulabchand and Brothers, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra[1965] 16 S.T.C. 452. One of the arguments was that glass panes and glass sheets would be "glass" and not glassware. This argument was repelled. Similarly, in Haji Jamaluddin Manguji v. State[1955] 6 S.T.C. 141., glass bangles were also treated as glassware. In the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, item No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emitted fragrant odours, it was covered by the word "perfume". These decisions, therefore, are of no assistance to the learned counsel for the appellants in the present case for the simple reason that in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, it is provided that for charging enhanced tax two conditions have to be fulfilled, viz., (1) that the item should be a "luxury goods" and (2) that it should be mentioned in the schedule. In the schedule, therefore, the Government is presumed to have entered only such goods as are luxury items. By using the general word "glassware" in the relevant entry, the Legislature obviously meant such glassware as are "luxury goods" and, similarly, by using the word "perfumery" in entry No. 16, it must mean such items of perfumery as can be categorised as "luxury goods". So far as the word "perfumery" is concerned, as already discussed above, the context in which it occurs also indicates that it is used only in respect of items used for personal hygiene. The word "glassware", therefore, cannot possibly apply to articles, like beakers, test tubes, etc., which are used only for educational purposes or for experiments connected with scient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
