Central Sales Tax - Jharkhand - 3 per cent CST on all types of glass and glass sheets not applicable to glass and glassware made of Opal glass: SC
THE respondent is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware made of Opal glass. The State Government had issued a notification in 2001 allowing a three per cent Central Sales Tax (instead of the normal 4 per cent) in respect of Sale of all types of glass and glass sheets in the course of interstate sale.
The question before the Supreme Court in a recent judgement is whether the products of the respondent are covered by the expression "types of glass and glass-sheets" as contained in the notification.
Supreme Court observed,
It is settled rule of construction of a notification that at the outset a strict approach ought to be adopted in administering whether a dealer/ manufacturer is covered by it at all and if the dealer/manufacturer falls within the notification, then the provisions of the notification be liberally construed. Literally speaking, an exemption is freedom from any liability, payment of tax or duty. It may assume different applications in a growing economy such as provisioning for tax holiday to new units, concessional rate of tax to goods or persons for a limited period under specific conditions.
It is a settled law that in taxing statutes the terms and expressions must be seen in their common and popular parlance and not be attributed their scientific or technical meanings. In common parlance, the two words "type" and "form" are not of the same import.
Admittedly, glassware is a form of glass and it is contended by the assessee that forms of glass are also covered by the said notification. The term glassware would generally encompass ornaments, objects and articles made from glass. Glassware would include crockery such as drinking vessels (drinkware) and tableware and general glass items such as vases, pots, etc. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the expression "types of glass" could have been intended to refer to or include "forms of glass".
The Supreme Court held: the respondent-dealer, a manufacturer of articles of glass, is not entitled to derive the benefit of the notification issued by the State Government, dated 25.06.2001.