TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osquito-net fabrics for which, it was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The applicant moved an application under section 35 of the Act before the Commissioner, Trade Tax, to settle the dispute about the taxability of HDPE woven fabrics. Before the Commissioner of Trade Tax, claim of the applicant was that HDPE woven fabrics being nylon silk fabrics used for domestic purposes, is exempted from the tax under the Notification Nos. 3738 dated January 31, 1985, 3714 dated June 5, 1985, 303 dated February 1, 1989, 595 dated April 6, 1999. The Commissioner of Trade Tax vide order dated September 30, 2000 held that HDPE woven fabrics is specifically excluded from the ambit of textile and, therefore, is not exempted from tax and is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Reliance is placed on the decisions of apex court in the case of Rainbow Steels Ltd., Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow reported in [1981] 47 STC 298; [1981] UPTC 400 and Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in AIR 1991 SC 754. Thus, HDPE fabrics in the form of mosquito-nets which are used for domestic purposes and not for the industrial purposes, are not excluded from textile . The exclusion clause has to be interpreted strictly, even though, the words used in the exclusionary part of the notification had a wide dictionary meaning or connotation. Only that meaning should be given to them which would achieve rather than frustrate the object of exemption. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for industrial purposes, have been excluded from the word textile . He submitted that there is no reason to restrict the meaning of HDPE fabrics to only HDPE fabrics used for the commercial purposes, in the absence of any such reference in the notification. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. The entry of textiles in Notification No. 7038 dated January 31, 1985 has been amended by the subsequent notification. Later notifications reiterate the position taken in the notification dated January 31, 1985 except for some minor amendments which do not affect the controversy in the present case. The entry 53 textile of Notification No. 7038 dated January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iguous. There is no reason to restrict the meaning of HDPE fabrics mentioned in the notification to HDPE fabrics used for the commercial purposes. Each item which have been excluded from textile are the independent items and cannot be classified as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant in three categories. In the case of Mahalaxmi Polyplast v. State of U.P. reported in [1992] 86 STC 523 (All); [1990] UPTC 956, the Division Bench of this court held that the laminated HDPE fabrics being rubberised or synthetic water proof fabrics is exempted from tax. In the case of Kanpur Plasticpack Ltd., Kanpur v. State of U.P. reported in [1995] UPTC 1107 , this court held that HDPE woven fabrics is taxable. Similar view has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. In the case of State of Kerala v. Vattukalam Chemicals Industries [2001] 124 STC 233; [2001] 7 JT 144, the apex court held that the primary object is to tax and exemption notification is to be construed strictly. In the case of Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer reported in [1981] 127 ITR 287; [1980] UPTC 1984, the Division Bench of this court held as follows (page 295 of ITR): . . . It is well established that where the language of a section is plain and unambiguous, it is not open to courts to read into it limitation, which are not there based on an a priori reasoning, as to the probable intention of the Legislature. Such int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
