TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the joint Commercial Tax Officer for a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,61,687.44 and Rs. 22,448.34 respectively. The assessees claimed exemption on the ground that the rexine-coated cotton fabrics come under "textiles" as defined in item 31 referred to supra. The said exemption claimed by the assessees found favour with the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. However, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 35 of the said Act suo motu called for and examined the order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and as, in his view, the finished product would not come under item 31, he caused a notice to be issued to the assessees of his proposal to revise and modify the assessment. The assessees filed their wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt properties and characteristics and are intended for different use, and in commercial circles they are treated as entirely different from cloth or textile. Item 4 of Schedule III should be construed independent of any definition given under any other statute. The proper test is to find out whether after the application of rubber or P.V.C. solution the base cloth continues to be cloth or whether it has become a different product intended for a different user. Though item 4 of Schedule III begins with the words 'all varieties of textiles, the words 'all varieties' cannot be taken to control or affect the true construction of the word 'textiles'. The legislature has used the words 'all varieties' for the purpose of bringing within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principle laid down in the above decision squarely applied to the facts in the instant case. Here also though the base is a cotton fabric and "textile" yet, the final product ceased to be a "textile". Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the assessees contended that the decision of this Court cited supra might require reconsideration in view of the later Supreme Court decision in Porritts Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1978] 42 STC 433 (SC). The further contention was that according to the definition in item 31, anything made wholly or partly of cotton will be a "textile" and that as the finished product is made up of a cotton cloth which is a textile, it will simply fall within the said entry. The last contention was that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as understood in common parlance and that the said decision was not noticed by the Supreme Court in the above later decision. Be that as it may, the emphasis laid down by the Supreme Court de hors the user is that the finished product should be a textile and should be regarded as textile in common parlance without doing any violence to the language. The finished product in this case cannot be regarded as "textile" even though the base is, or the product is made up of, cotton, which is a textile. As a matter of fact, even a new invention is possible, because of bewildering advancement in science, yet according to the Supreme Court, such a finished product should be regarded as textile in common parlance. Therefore, the decisive test is whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adu v. East India Rubber Works, Madras [1974] 33 STC 399 where it is pointed out that any item in any schedule should be construed independent of any definition given under any other statutes. What has to be examined and understood is item 31 in the Third Schedule to the Act. It is rather hazardous to draw any inspiration from the decisions of any court rendered on a totally different definition of "textiles" and in different statutes. The Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Arora Material Store [1982] 51 STC 235 was concerned with the construction of "cotton fabrics of all varieties" as defined in entry 3 (Notification No. ST-4064/X-960(4)/58 dated 25th November, 1958) under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. A learned Judge of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial used by the company is cotton and woollen yarn and the finished products called felts are manufactured on powerlooms from cotton and woollen yarn and it is therefore that the Supreme Court held that dryer felts are clearly woven fabrics and must be held to fall within the ordinary meaning of the word "textile". The present product, viz., rexine-coated cotton fabric cannot be brought within the process of manufacture referred to above by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the dryer felts continued to be cotton even as a finished product unlike the present product. Thus, we reiterate that all the contentions carry no merit. The only other decision which requires reference is Silver Chem Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 45 STC 315 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
