Case Details M/s Triveni Glass Limited Rep. by Its Deputy General Manager (Sales and P.R.) Shri R.K. Sinha vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

9 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3773 of 2011 Etc.

Result

Dismissed

Bench

S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1095 : 2023 INSC 892

Issue for consideration

Whether “tinted glass sheets” manufactured by the assessee is liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass” under the Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981 being Entry No.IV or as unclassified item.

Headnote

UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 – s. 3A – Tinted glass sheets manufactured by the assessee – Levy of tax:

Held: Tinted glass sheet during the process of manufacture undergoes a change and is different from a plain glass sheet, thus, exigible to tax as ‘all goods and wares made of glass’ under Entry No. IV of the notification and attract a duty @15 % – Exclusion of plain glass panes, optical lens would fall within the residuary clause attracting 10 % tax – There is no vagueness in the notification dated 07.09.1981 and the entry No. IV is clear and unambiguous – It has brought within the sweep “all goods and wares made of glass” exigible to tax but not including “plain glass panes” and the exemption being the creation of the statute itself, it has to be construed strictly – Earlier the entry was “glassware” alone and the said entry was subsequently amended and the intention of the legislature is explicitly clear to include in its ambit any goods and wares made of glass – Intention of the legislature of using expression “of” would reveal the purpose and the court should presume that the legislature was reasonable – Furthermore, neither the dictionary meaning nor the common parlance theory would come to the rescue of the assessee – Thus, expression “all the goods and wares made of glass” occurring in Notification must be taken to refer to all articles of glass except those specifically excluded in the entry itself – Impugned judgment does not call for interference. [Para 15, 17, 26, 29-31] Interpretation of statutes – Fiscal statutes – Interpretation of provisions:

Held: Word used in a statute must take its colour from the object it seeks to achieve and also by considering the words with which it is associated in the context. [Para 17]

Words and Phrases – Word ‘Plain’ and ‘Panes’ – Meaning of. [Para 23]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1989) 3 SCC 127 : [1989]

3 SCR 210; Maqsood Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (1978) 41 STC 324 – distinguished.

Mauri Yeast India Private Limited v. State of U.P. (2008) SCC 680; Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (2002) 9 SCC 545; State of Jharkhand and Others v. LA Opala RG Limited (2014) 15 SCC

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. The point that arises for our consideration is whether “tinted glass sheets” manufactured by the appellants is liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass” under the Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981 being Entry No.IV or as unclassified item. 2. In all these appeals, the above common question of law arises for our consideration. The facts in brief which are common in Civil Appeal No.3773 of 2011 relates to the tax assessment years 1996-97, Civil Appeal No.5914 of 2023 relates to the notice issued for re-assessm

View Subscription Plans →