Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
FILTRCO & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1986
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
MISRA, R.B. (J)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 626 1986 SCR (1) 239
1986 SCC (2) 103 1986 SCALE (1)171
ACT:
Constitution of India - Article 226 and 227 whether the
High Court can dismiss a petition in limine on the plea of
the existence of an alternate remedy open to the petitioner
Construction of a taxing statute - The Madhya Pradesh
General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - Exemption under section 10-
Whether "Compressed Woollen Felts" constitute "cloth" so as
to fall within the scope of Entry 6 of Schedule I of the
1958 Act Principle of equitable Estoppel, applicability of-
Opinion given earlier on the basis of only one specimen of
the felt that it is "cloth" (when in fact the assessee
manufactures 26 varieties) and non recovery of tax on that
score for twelve years - Principle cannot be attracted.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants M/s. Filtereo manufactures compressed
felt by subjecting the Compressed woollen fibres to heat and
moisture. On March 25, 1971 they addressed a communication
to the Commissioner of Sales Tax forwarding a specimen of
the felt manufactured in their factory and requesting that
the same may be treated as exempt from tax under Entry 6 of
Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,
1958. This request-was acceded to through the Commissioner’s
letter dated 7.8.1971. On the basis of the said letter the
turnover of the company pertaining to the sales of
compressed woollen felt was not subjected to the during the
period from 1971 to 1982. However, be a letter dated 4.3.
1982 the Commissioner of Sales The informed the appellants
that "in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of M/s. Gujarat Woollen Mills, (A.I.R. 1977-1548 S.C.)
that compressed woollen felts are not "woollen fabrics", its
earlier opinion dt. 7.8.71 to the contrary that the
Compressed Woollen Felt manufactured by appellant will be
except under Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Sales Tax Act,
1958 be treated as cancelled. Aggrieved by the
240
revised stand taken by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the
appellants filed an application before the Commissioner of
Sales Tax under section 42B of the Act for a determination
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
of the question of taxability of the goods in question by
producing as many as 26 samples of felt of varying hardness,
density and thickness alongwith a statement showing details
of each sample. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was of the
view that though the expression "cloth" will take in non-
wovan material inclusive of "felt", pliability is an
essential attribute of "cloth" and only those varieties of
felt manufactured by the appellants which satisfy the test
of pliability can be legitimately classified as "cloth" and
applying the said test, by his order dated 25.1.83, held
that only 5 out of the 26 specimens produced by the
appellants namely, those marked by the Commissioner as A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-19 could be classified as "cloth" and
granted exemption from tax under Entry 6 of Schedule I of
the Act. The remaining 21 samples attracted tax liability at
the rate of ten per cent.
The appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh challenging the aforesaid order but the
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition without entering into
merits by observing that there was an alternate remedy
available to the petitioners under the Act. Hence the appeal
by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
^
HELD : 1. A summary dismissal of the Writ Petition on
the specious plea of availability of alternate remedy
without considering and pronouncing upon the merits of the
contentions raised by the parties, in this case, is not
justified, in as much as (a) the order passed by the Commis-
sioner of Sales Tax was clearly binding on the assessing
authority under section 42B(2); (b) although technically it
would have been open to the appallants to urge their
contentions before the appellate authoring , that would be a
mere exercise in futility when a superior officer namely,
the Commissioner, has already passed a well considered order
in the exercise of his statutory jurisdiction under sub-
section (1) of section 42-B of the Act holding that 21
varieties of the compressed woollen felt manufactured by the
appellants are not eligible for exemption under Entry 6 of
Schedule I of the Act; and (c) a substantial
241
portlon of the tas has to be deposited before an appeal or
revision can be flled as required by seetion 38(3) of the
Act. [ 246 C-H; 247 A]
2. The legal position is now well settled that words of
everyday use occurring in a dashing statute nust be
construed not ia thelr scientific or technical sense but as
understood in common parlance that is in their popular
sense. [ 247 C-Dl
In order to attract the benefit of exemption conferred
by Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Act the goods must fall
within the description "all varieties of cloth". Going by
the meanlng glven in Dictionaries as well as by its
generally accepted popular ConnotatiQn "cloth" is woven
knitted or felted material which is pliable and is capable
of being wrapped folded or wound around. It need not
necessarlly be uaterlal w ltable for maklng garments because
there can be "cloth" sultable oaly for industrial purposes
but nevertheless it must possess the basic feature of
pliability. Hard and thlck material which csnnot be wrapped
or wound around cannot be regarded as "cloth". Therefore
only those varieties of felt manufactured by the appellahts
which satisfy the test of pliablllq will constitute "cloth"
so as to fall within the scope of Entry 6 of Schedule I of
the Act. [247 A-B; C-G 248 D-E]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
Grenfell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1876] 1 Ex.
D. 242 at 248; 200 Cheata of Tea [1824] 9 Wheaton (U.S.) 430
at 438; Motipur Zselodsry Co. Ltt. v. State of Bihar [1962]
13 S.T.C. 1 S.C.; State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed [1977]
39 S.T.C. 378 S.C. referred to.
Porritts snd Spenoer (Aais) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
[1978] 42 S.T.C. 433 S.C. and Union of India and Ors. v.
Gujrat Woollen Felt Mills [1977] 3 S.C.R. 472 esplalnet and
distingushed.
3. The princlple of equltable estoppel is not attractet
in the instant case in as much as only one specimen of felt
had been forwarded by the appellants to the Commissioner of
Sales Tax along wlth thelr letter tited March 25 1971 ant lt
was only ln relation to thaL single specinen of felt that
the Commissioner had expressed the view that it was exempt
under Entry 6 of Schedule I of lts letter dated
242
August 7, 1971, while froo the saoples protuced later on it
was found that the appellants are rsnufacturing as many as
26 tifferent varieties of coopresset woollen felt of varying
hardness, density and thickness out of which only 5 were
eligible for exeoption. [249 E-H; 250 A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8548 of
1983.
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.3.83 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 298 of 1983.
P. Govindan Nair, S.K. Gambhir for the Appellants.
A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court wa3 delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. The short but interesting
question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by
special leave is whether the Compressed Woollen Felts
manufactured in the samll-scale industry unit of the
appellants can be said to constitute "cloth" so as to fall
within the scope of Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Madhya
Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short ’the Act’),
which is in the following terms:-
"All varieties of Cloth manufactured in mills or
on powerlooms or handlooms including processed
cloth, but excluding hessian cloth" - so as to
eligible for exemption of sales tax under Section
lO of the said Act.
The process of manufacture of ’felt’ adopted in the
appellants’ factory has been described in the order of the
Coroissioner of Sales Tax dated January 25, 1983. the raw
material consisting of woollen fibres is first mixed
thoroughly and thereafter carded on a carding machine, which
process results in the laying of the fibres in a combed
condition in a uniform direction. me combed fibres in the
shape of a web layer are then subjected to the process of
hardening in a machine having an eccentric motion; the
carded webs &re put through two layers of cloth and passed
through a steam chest. m is results in the web/wool layer
being converted in the form of a sheet, which is then
subjected to
243
the process of milling to impart to it necessary tensile
strength and shrinkage. For this purpose, the sheet is put
in a machine, which has two rows of contra-rotating rollers
to provlde the necessary felting action to the sheet. The
sheets run in the machine till the desired shrinkage and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
density are achleved. After this the sheet is dried and
trimmed at the ends and thereafter subjected to the process
of calendering and for this purpose it is passed through
steam heated contrarotating rollers. me resultant product is
’felt’.
From the above description it is clear that the woollen
felt manufactured by the appellants is a material obtained
by compressing woollen fibres and subjecting the same to
heat and moisture. It is a non-woven material.
On March 25, 1971, the appellants addressed a
communicatlon to the Commissioner of Sales Tax forwarding a
specimen of the felt manufactured in their factory and
requesting that the same may be treated as exempt from tax
under Entry 6 of Schedule I.
In reply thereto the Commissioner of Sales Tax sent the
following communication (Annexure I) to the appellants:-
"OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX COMMISSIONER MADHYA PRADESH
NO.Wick/F/32/71/12317 Indore, dated 7.8.1971
To
Filterco
Garden 51,
Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh).
Sir, With reference to your letter dated
25.3.1971, it is stated thae specimen of felt
submitted by you, being woollen fabric, is exempt
under M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, under
Entry 6 of its Schedule I.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(N.K. PILLAI)
Additional Commissioner
for Commissioner of Sales Tax
Madhya Pradesh".
244
It is common ground that apparently on the basis of the
said letter of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the turnover
of the appellants pertsining to the sales of compressed
woollen felt was not subjected to tax during the period from
1971 to 1982.
While matters stood thus, the Commissioner of Sales
Tax, Madhya Pradesh issued the following letter (Annexure
II) to the appellants on March 4, 1982:-
"OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER SALES TAX MADHYA PRADESH
No.ST/I-310/24(b)79/2872 Indore. dt. 4.3.1982
To
M/s Filterco,
Garden 51,
Neemuch (MP)
Sub:- Lew of sales tax on compressed woollen Felt.
In view of the judgment given by the Supreme Court
in the case of M/s Gujarat Woollen Mills (A.I.R.-
1977-1548 SC) that the compressed woollen felts
are not "woollen fabrics", Compressed Woollen Felt
manufactured by you will not be exempt under entry
6 of Schedule I of the M.P. General Sales Act,
1958 but will be covered under entry 1 of Part VI
of Schedule II appended to the said Act, and will
attract tax @ 10%.
Clarification given to you in this office letter
No.I/26/32/71-12317, dated 7.8.1971 is hereby
cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Asstt. Commissioner (Tech)
for Commissioner of Sales Tax
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
Madhya Pradesh."
245
Feeling aggrieved by the revised stand taken by the
Commissioner of Sales Tax that the felt manufactured in the
appellants factory is not eliglble for exemption and will
attract tax at lO%, the appellants filed an application
before the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 42-B of
the Act for a determination of the question of taxability of
the goods in question. Section 42-B is in the following
terms:-
"Section 42-B. Deter in tion of diaputed question
1. If any question is raised by a dealer in
respect of the rate o tax on any goods, the
Commissioner shall, in accordance with such
procedure as may be prescribed, make an order
determining the rate of tax on such goods.
2. Any order passed by the Commissioner under
subsection (1) shall be binding on the authorities
referred to in Section 3 in all proceedings under
the Act except appeals."
The appellants produced before the Commissioner as many
as 26 samples of felt of varying hardness, density and
thickness along with a statement showing details of each
sample. After affording full hearing to the appellants, the
Commissioner of Sales Tax passed an order dated January 25,
1983 expressing the view that though the expression "cloth"
will take in non-woven material inclusive of ’felt’,
pliability is an essentlal attribute of "cloth" and only
those varieties of felt manufactured by the appellants which
satisfy the-test of pliability can be legitimately
classified as "cloth". Applying the said test, the
Commissioner held that only 5 out of the 26 specimens
produced by the appellants namely, those marked by the Co d
ssioner as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-19 could be classified
as "cloth" and granted exemption from tax under Entry 6 of
Schedule I of the Act and that the remaining 21 samples
would not fall within the scope of the said entrY and are,
therefore, taxable at the rate of lO%.
The appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh challenging the aforesaid order passed by
the Commissioner in so far as it went against them. The High
Court dismissed the Writ Petition without entering into the
merits by stating thus:-
246
"It is not the case of the petitioners that in
passing the impugned order, the Commissioner,
therefore has acted contrary to the procedure pres
cribed by the Act or the Rules made thereunder.
The petitioners having referred the dispute to the
Commissioner, he had jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order. At this stage, we refrain from
expressing any opinion regarding the correctness
of the impugned order because that order would not
be binding on the appellate authorities under the
Act, which would, no doubt, examine the question
afresh if raised before them by the petitioners.
If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision
of the appellate authorities, a reference to this
Court under Section 44 of the Act can be made. As
a remedy is available to the petitioners under the
Act, it is not necessary to invoke the extraorti
nary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India."
Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court the
appellants have filed this appeal after obtaining special
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
leave.
We are of opinion that the High Court should have
examined the merits of the case instead of dismissing the
Writ Petition in limine in the manner it has done. The order
passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was clearly binding
ol the assessing authority under Section 42B(2) and although
technically it would have been open to the appellants to
urge their contentions before the appellate authority
namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that would be
a mere exercise in futility when a superior officer namely,
the Commissioner, has already passed a well considered order
in the exercise of his statutory jurisdlction under sub-
section (1) of Section 42-B of the Act holding that 21
varieties of the compressed woollen felt manufactured by the
appellants are not eligible for exemption under Entry 6 of
Schedule I of the Act. Further Section 38(3) of the Act
requires that a substantial portion of the tax has to be
deposited before an appeal or revision can be filed. In such
circumstances we consider that the High Court ought to have
considered and pronounced upon the merits
247
of the contentions raised by the parties and the summary
dismissal of the Writ Petition was not justified. In such a
situation, although we would have, ordinarily, set aside the
judgment of the High Court and remitted the case to that
Court for fresh disposal, we consider that in the present
case it would be in the interests of both sides to have the
matter finally decided by th.is Court at the present stage
itself especially since we have had the benefit of elaborate
and learned arguments addressed by the counsel appearing on
both sides.
In order to attract the benefit of the exemption
conferred by Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Act, the goods
must fall within the description "all varieties of cloth".
The legal position is now well settled that words of
everyday use occurring in a taxing statute must be construed
not in their scientific or technical sense but as understood
in common parlance, that is, in their "popular sense". As
succinctly stated by Pollock, B., in Grenfell v. Inland
Revenue Commissioners, [1876] 1 Ex.D. 242 at 248, "if a
statute contains language which is capable of being
construed in a popular sense, such ’ a statute is not to be
construed according to the strict or technical meaning of
the language contained in it, but is to be construed in its
popular sense, meaning of course, by the words "popular
sense", that sense which people conversant with the subject-
matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to
it"’. The same principle was expressed in a slightly
different language by Story J., in 200 Chests of Tea, [1824]
9 Wheaton (U.S.) 430 at 438, where the learned Judge said
that "the particular words used by the legislature in the
denomination of articles are to be understood according to
the common commercial understanding of the terms used, and
not in their scientific or technical sense, ’for the
legislature does not suppose our merchants to be
naturalists, or geologists, or botanists"’. m is Court has
reiterated the said position in Motipur Zamindary Company
Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1962) 13 S.T.C. 1 (S.C.), State of
West Bengal v. Washi Abmed, (1977) 39 S.T.C. 378 (S.C.) and
Porrltts and Spencer (Aala) Ltd, v. State of Hhryana, (1978)
42 S.T.C. 433 (S.C.).
According to Oxford English Dictionary - "cloth means-
248
"A piece of pliable woven or felted stuff,
suitable for wrapping or winding around, spreading
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
or folding over, drying, wiping or other purpose;
a swaddling or winding cloth, wrap, covering,
veil, curtain, handkerchief, towel etc." . . . . .
(underlining ours)
In Webfiter’s New International Dictionary "cloth" is
stated to mean:-
"A pliable fabric, woven, felted or knitted from
any filament, commonly fabric or woven cotton,
woollen, silk, rayon or linen fabric, used for
garments etc.
(underlining ours)
Going by the meaning given in Dictionaries as well as
by its generally accepted popular connotation "cloth" is
woven, knitted or felted material which is pliable and is
capable of being wrapped, folded or wound around. It need
not necessarily be material suitable for making garments
because there can be "cloth" suitable only for industrial
purpose; but nevertheless it must possess the basic feature
of pliability. Hard and thick material which cannot be
wrapped or wound around cannotbe regarded as "cloth". We
are, therefore, of opinion that the Commissioner was
perfectly right in his view that only those varieties of
felt manufactured by the appellants which satisfy the test
of pliability will constitute "cloth" so as to fall within
the scope of Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Act.
Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that
there is a conflict between this Court’s decisions in
Pbrritts aod Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryaos (supra)
and the earlier ruling of this Court in Unioo of India and
Ors. v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills, [1977] 3 S.C.R. 472. We
see no conflict at all between these two decisions. However,
neither of those rulings is of any assistance in deciding
the present case though both of them dealt with certain
varieties of ’felt’. In the Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills case,
the questlon before this Court was whether non-woven felts
manufactured out of woollen fibres by machine-pressing were
"woollen fabrics" for the purpose of levy of excise duty
under entry 21 in Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt
Act, 1944. It was
249
held that the expression "fabric" took in only woven
material and hence non-woven felts made out of woollen
fibers were not "woollen fabrics".
The question that arose before this Court in the
subsequent case - Porritts And Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State
of Haryana (supra) was wholly different. In that case it was
contended that ’dryer felts’ made out of cotton or woollen
yarn by the process of weaving according to the wrap and
woof pattern and commonly used as absorbents of moisture in
paper manufacturing units fell within the ordinary and
common parlance sense of the word "textiles" in item 30 of
Schedule to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and were,
therefore, exempt from tax. Upholding the said contention
this Court held that expression "textiles" interpreted
according to its popular sense has only one meaning, namely
a woven fabric and since the dryer felts were manufactured
out of cotton, woollen or synthetic yarn by the process of
weaving according to the wrap and woof pattern, they were
undoubtedly "textiles" within the meaning of that expression
in item 30 of Schedule B. The subject matter of the case
before us being admittedly felt manufactured by a totally
different process and the wording of the Entry 6 in Schedule
I of the statute, with which we are concerned being also
wholly different, these two decisions are of no assistance
to us.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied
strongly on the letter of the Commissioner of Sales Tax
dated August 7, 1971 - Annexure I and sought to invoke to
the principle of equitable estoppel as debarring the
respondents from contending that the goods in question are
ineligible for the benefit of the exemption conferred by
Entry 6 of Schedule I. We do not find it possible to uphold
this contention. It is seen from the appellants’ letter
dated August 7, 1971, which we have extracted above that
only one specimen of felt had been forwarded by the
appellants to the Commissioner of Sales Tax along with their
letter dated March 25, 1971 and it was only in relation to
that single specimen of felt that the Commissioner had
expressed the view that it was exempt under Entry 6 of
Schedule I. From the samples produced in this case it is
found that the appellants are manufacturing as many as 26
different varieties of compressed woollen felt of varying
hardness, density and thickness. There is absolutely no
250
material on the record to show which out of these 26
varieties was sent as specimen to the Commissioner in 1971.
In these circumstances the principle of equitable estoppel
is not attracted.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that
the view taken by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in his order
dated January 25, 1983 is perfectly legal and correct and
the said order does not call for any interference.
However, before we part with the case we may observe
that having regard to the fact that the appellants industry
is one in the small-scale sector and the appellants appear
to have been lulled into a false sense of security by the
impression gathered by them from the Commissioner’s letter
dated August 7, 1971 that the ’felt’ manufactured in their
factory is not liable to tax by reason of which impression
the appellants had desisted from collecting any sales tax
from the customers during the period between 1971 and
January, 1983, this is a fit case where the State Government
should sympathetically consider the question whether the
whole or at least a substantial portion of the sales tax
payable in respect of the turnover of the goods during the
aforesaid period should not be waived for the sake of saving
the industry from financial ruination. With these
observations, we dismiss this appeal but direct the parties
to bear their respective costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
251