Holding

Clinical syringes are not glass ware; therefore the turnover up to 30‑Nov‑1973 is taxable at 4 % under Entry 44 and the turnover thereafter at 7 % as an unclassified item.

Summary

Indo International Industries manufactured hypodermic clinical syringes and, for the assessment year 1973‑74, claimed that the turnover up to 30 Nov 1973 should be taxed at 4 % as "hospital equipment" under Entry 44 (or at 3½ % as an unclassified item) and the turnover from 1 Dec 1973 to 31 Mar 1974 at 7 % as an unclassified item. The Sales Tax Officer treated the syringes as "glass ware" under Entry 39 and levied tax at 10 % on the whole amount. The Supreme Court examined whether "glass ware" should be given its scientific meaning or its popular commercial meaning, holding that tax statutes are to be interpreted according to the ordinary commercial sense of the terms. Relying on precedents that emphasize popular meaning, the Court found that clinical syringes are not ordinarily regarded as glass ware. Consequently, the turnover up to 30 Nov 1973 fell under Entry 44 and was taxable at 4 %, while the later turnover was taxable at 7 % as an unclassified item. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether hypodermic clinical syringes fall within the expression "glass ware" under Entry 39 of the First Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948.
What tax rate is applicable to the turnover of such syringes for the periods before and after 1 December 1973?

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948s. 3A(2A), s. Entry 39, s. Entry 44

Subjects

sales taxclassificationglass warehypodermic syringespopular meaningtax rateEntry 39Entry 44unclassified itemstatutory interpretation

Judgment

294
A INDO INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES
v.
COMMISSfONER OF SALES TAX,
UTTAR PRADESH.

B March 25, 1981

[ ·V.D. TULZAPURKAR, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND
AMRENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. ]

Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, Entry Nu. 39 of the First Schedule
c thereto-"Hypodermic clinical syringes"-whether a glass ware.

Upto November 30, 1973, there were two competing entries in the First
Schedule to the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, so far as the item "hypodermic.
clinical syringes" is concerned, namely, Entry 39 which ran : "Glass wares other
than hurricane lantern chimneys, optical lenses and bottles" and Entry 44 which
ran: "Hospital equipment and apparatus"and for an item faJJing under the former
D the rate of tax was 1(, % while uncier the latter the rate of tax was 4 % and for an
unclassified item the rate was 3-1/2%. From December l, 1973 onwards Entry 44
was deleted and, therefore, if the clinical syringes did not fall within entry 39 it
became an unclassified item under .section 3A(2A) of the U .P. Sales Tax Act,
1948 and the rate of tax was 7%. In view of this position that obtained for the
relevant periods during the assessment year 1973-74 the appellant-assessee had
claimed before "the assessing autho1ities that its turnover in respect of syringes
E for the period up to November 30, 1973 was liable to tax at 3-1 /2% as an unclassi-
fied item or in the alternative at 4% as "hospital equipment" under Entry 44 and
its turnover for the period from December I, 1973 to March 31, 1974 was liable
to be taxed at 7% as an unclassifieci item. But, negativing its contentions the
entire turnover was held to be taxable at the rate of 10% on the basis that clinical
syringes fe]J within the expression "glass ware" occurring in Entry 39 and hence
the appeal by special leave on the question whether hypodermic clinical syringes
F could be regarded as glass ware. '
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : ]. The assessee's turnover up to November :•O, 1973 will fall under
Entry 44 dealing with "hospital <quipmem" and the same would be taxable at
the rate of 4% and its turnover from December 1, 1974 will be taxable at the
G rate of 7% as an unclassified item. [298 H]

2 : ]. It is well settled that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise
Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for
which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances resort
should! be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or ex-
H pressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning-attached
to them by those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined
in the enactment tren it must be understcod in the sense in which it is defined
INDO INDUSTRIES v. C.S.T. (Tulzapurkar, J.) 295

but in the absence of any definition, being given in the enactment the meaning A
of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted.
[297 C-D]

y Ramavatar Budhiaprasad etc. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer,' Ako/a, [1961] 1
SCR 279 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. las.want Singh
Charan Singh, [1967] 2 SCR 720, followed.
B
2 : 2. The clinical syringes which the assessee manufactures and sells can-
not be considered as" glass ware" falling within Entry 39 of the First Schedule
of the Act. (a) Jn commercial sense, glass ware would never comprise articles like
clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, and the like which have specialised
significance and utility: (b) in popular or commercial parlance a general merchant
dealing in "glass ware" does not ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes,
thermometers etc. which articles though made of glass, are normally available in c
medical stores or with the manufacturers thereof .like the assessee; (c) it is equally
unlikely that consumer would ask for such articles from a glass ware shop.
Further in popular sense when one talks of glass ware such specialised articles
like clinical syringes do not come up to one's mind. [298 E-F]

State of Orissa v. Janta Medical Stores, 37 STC 33, approved.
D
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S.S.R. Syringes and Thermometers, 1973 Law
Diary 178, overruled.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 151 of
1981.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated E
16.8.1969 of the Addi. Judge (Revions) Sales Tax, Saharanpur in
Revision Appln. No. 1688/78.

J. R,1mamurthi and Miss R. Vaigai for the Appellant.

S. C. Manchroida, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for the F
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TULZAPURKAR, J. This appeal by special leave raises the
question whether hypodermic clinical .syringes could be regarded as
"glass ware"' under Entry No. 39 of the First Schedule to U.P_ G
Sales Tax Act, 1948 ?

The facts giving rise to the question lie in a narrow compass.
The appellant firm (hereinafter called the assessee) manufactures
and sells hypodermic clinical ·syringes. For the assessment year H
1973-74 the assessee filed a return disclosing net U.P. sales of such
syringes at Rs. 95,065. The disclosed turnover was accepted by the
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R.

A Sales Tax Officer, Sector III Muzaffarnagar, but as regards the rate
of tax the assessee contended that the clinical syringes in respect of
their turnover of Rs. 91,513 up to November 30, 197 3 should be
regarded as an unclassified item and taxed at the rate of 3t% or
at 4% as "hospital equipment and apparatus" under Entry 44 of
the First Schedule to the Act and on the turnover of Rs. 3,552/-
B for the period from December l, 1973 to March 31, 197 4 at the rate
of 7% as an unclassified item. The Sales Tax Officer, however,
treated the syringes as "glass ware" and taxed the entire turnover of
Rs. 95,065/- at the rate of 10% under Entry No. 39 of the First
Schedule. The said assessment was upheld in appeal by the
Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Muzaffarnagar and
c also in revision by the Additional Judge (Revision), Sales Tax,
Saharanpur on August 16, 1979. It is this view taken by the
assessing authorities as well as by the Additional Judge in revision
that is being challenged by the assessee before us in this appeal.

It may be stated that up to November 30, 1973 there were
D two competing entries in the First Schedule to the U.P. Sales Tax
Act so far as the item in question is concerned, namely, Entry 39
which ran : "Glass wares other than hurricane lantern chimneys,
optical lenses and bottles" and Entry 44 which ran : "Hospital
equipment and apparatus" and for an item falling under the former
the rate of tax was 10% while under the latter the rate of tax was
E 4 % and for an unclassified item the rate was 3 ~ %. From December
1, 1973 onwards Entry 44 was deleted and, therefore, if the clinical
syringes did not fall within Entry 39 it became an unclassified item
under s. 3A (2A) of the Act and tl;e rate of tax was 7%. In view of
this position that obtained for the relevant periods during the
assessment year 1973-74 the a'sessee had claimed before the assess-
.F
ing authorities that its turnover in respect of syringes for the period
up to November 30, 1973 was liable to tax at 3; % as an unclassified
item or in tbe alternative at 4% as "hospital equipment" under
Entry 44 and its turnover for the period from December I, 1973
to March 31, 1974 was liable to be taxed at 7% as an unclassified
G item. But, negativing its contentions the entire turnover was held
to be taxable at the rate of 10% on the basis that clinical syringes
fell within the expression "glass ware" occurring in Entry 39.
Counsel for the assessee contended before us that in the absence of
any definition of "glass ware" in the Act that expression must be
understood in the ordinary commercial parlance and not in any
H
scientific and technical sense and if such test were applied to the
instant case then clinical syringes manufactured and sold by the
INDO INDUSTRIES v C.S.T. (Tulzapurkar, J.) 297

assessee could never be regarded as "glass ware". Counsel pointed A
out that the Revising Authority negatived the contention of the
assessee in view of a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the
y case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S. S. R. Syringes and Thermo-
meters(1) but urged that the contrary view taken by the Oris~a High
Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Jania Medical Stores(') that
thermometers, lactometers, syringes, eye-glasses, etc. do not come B
within the meaning of the expression "glass ware" in Entry No. 38
in the Schedule to the relevant Notification issued under the first
proviso to s. 5(1) of .the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was correct.
In our view counsel's contention has considerable force and
deserves acceptance.
c
It is well settled that in interpretting items in statutes like the \/"
Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise
revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles
and substances resort should be had not to the scientific and techni-
cal meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular
meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those D
dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the
enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is
defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the
11 enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commer-
cial parlance has to be adopted. In_ Ramavatar Budhiaprasad, etc.
~ v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola( 3) the question was whether E
.__, 'betel leaves' fell within item 'vegetable' so as to earn exemption
from sales tax and this Court held that word· 'vegetable' had not
II
been defined in the Act, and that the same must be construed not
~
. in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as
understood in common parlance and so construed it denoted those
classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen garden and F
are used for the table and did not comprise betel leaves within it and,
't therefore, betel leaves were not exempt from taxation: In Com-
missioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan
Singh( 4 ) the question was whether the item 'coal' under Entry I of
Part III of Second Schedule to Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax
Act, 1958 included charcoal or not and this Court observed thus : G
"Now, there can be no dispute that while coal is tecbni-.
cally understood as a mineral product, charcoal is manu-

(!) 1973 Law Diary 178.
(2) 37 S.T.C. 33. H
(3) (1961] 1 S.C.R. 279.
(4) (1967) 2 S.C.R. 720.
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 s.c.R.

A factured by human agency from products like wood and
other things. But it is now well-settled that w bile interpre-
ting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should
be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of
such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning
attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say,
B to their commercial sense."

Viewing the question from the above angle this Court further
observed that both a merchant dealing in coal and a consumer
wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its geological sense
but in the sense as ordinarily understood and would include 'char-
c coal' in the term "coal", and held that 'charcoal' fell within the
concerned Entry No. 1 of Part III of Schedule II of the Act.

Having regard to the aforesaid well-settled test the question is
whether clinical syringes could be regarded as "glass ware" falling
within Entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act ? It is true that
D the dictionary meaning of the expression "glass ware" is "articles
made of glass" (See : Websters New World Dictionary). However,
in commercial sense glass ware would never comprise articles like
clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like which have
specialised significance and utility. In popular or commercial parlance
a general merchant dealing in "glass ware" does not ordinarily deal
E in articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc. which
articles though made of glass, are normally available in medical
stores or with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is
equally unlikely that consumer would ask for such articles from a
glass ware shop. In popular sense when one talks of glass ware
such specialised articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lacto-
F
meters and the like do not come up to one's mind. Applying the
aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the clinical
syringes which the assessee manufactures and sells cannot be con·
sidered as "glass ware" falling within Entry 39 of the First Schedule
of the Act.
G
In our opinion, the view taken by the Orissa High Court in
State of Orissa v. Jania Medical Stoi'es (supra) is correct and the
view of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v.
M/s S.S.R. Syringes and Thermometers (supra) is unsustainable.
H
In this view of the matter it is clear that the assessee's turnover
up to November 30, 1973 will fall under Entry 44 dealing with
INDO INDUSTRIES v. C.S.T. (Tulzapurkar, J.) 299

"hospital equipment" and the same would be taxable at the rate of A
4% and its turnover from December 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974 will
y- be taxable at the rate 7% as an unclassified item and the assessment
will have to be made accordingly.

In the result the appeal is allowed but there will be no order
as to costs. B
S. R. Appeal allowed.

·~·