PORRITTS & SPENCER (ASIA) LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 06-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PORRITTS & SPENCER (ASIA) LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
September 6, 1978 
545 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.j 
Puniab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, ltem 30 of Schedule 'B' to the Ac/-
Whether 'dryer felts' fall within the category of "all varieties of cotton, woollen 
or !liken textiles." 
The "<n>~ • felts' manufactured by the appellQnt assessee were held by the 
assessing autno."'"ities to be not 'textiles' within the 
meaning of Item 30 of 
Schedule 'B' tu the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 
and 
thereafter, oii 
appeal the Tribunal and on reference the High Court also confirmed this view. 
Allowing the. appeal by special leiove, the Court 
HEW : 1. 'Dryer fe1ts' are 'textiles' withi.Q the meaning of that expression 
in Item 30 of Schedule 'B' to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. [551 BJ 
2. In Or taxing statute words of every day use must be construed not in their 
sci'entific or technical sense but as understood in common parlance, meaning 
"that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the 
statute is dealing would attribute to it." [548 A, F] 
·Ramavatur ·Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, A.I.R. 1961 
SC 1325, Mis. Motipur Jamindary Co. Ltd. v. State of Bilwr, Al.R. 1962 SC 
660, State of West Bengal v. Washi A/uned. [19771 3 S.C.R. 149 and Madhya 
Pradesh Pan Merchant's Association, Santara 
Market, Nagpur v. State of 
Madhya Pradesh, 7 S.T.C. 99 at 102 referred to. 
Gretfell Vo lR.C. [1876)] 1 Ex. D. 242 at 248, Planters Nut a11d Chocolate 
Co. Ltd. v. The King [1951] 1 DLH 385 and 200 Chests of Tea, (loZ4) 9 
Wheaton (U.S.) 430 a.I 438; quoted with approval. 
Where a word has a scientific or technical meaning and also an ordinary 
meaning according to common parlance, it is in the latter sense that in a taXJng 
statute the word must be held to have been used, unless contrary in1ention is 
clearly expressed by the legislature. The reason is that the Lcgisla-ture does not 
suppose our merchants to be ''riaturaEsts, or geologists, or botanists"'. fn the ins-
tant case the word 'textiles' is not sought by the assessee to be given a scientific 
in preference to its pvpular meaning. It has only one meaning nameJy a woven 
fabric and lhat is the meaning or technical meaning which it bears in ordinary 
parlance. [550 E-GJ. 
3. The concept of 'textiles' is not a static concept. It has, having regard to 
newly developing materials, methods techniques and 
processes, a continually 
expanding content k'i:nd new kinds of ·fabric may be invented which may legiti-
mately, without doing any violence to the language be regarded as textiles. 
[550 G-HJ 
The word 'textiles' is derived from Latin 'texere' which n1eans 'to weave' and 
it means woven fabric. When yarn, whether cotton, silk, woollen rayon, nylon 
or of any other description or made out of any other materiel is woven into a 
fabric, \Vhat comes into being\ is a 'textile' and is known as such. \Vhatever be 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] 1 S.C.R. 
the mode of weaving 
employed, woven fabric would be 
'textile'. 
What is 
necessary is no more than meaning of yarn and weaving would mean binding 
or putting together by some process so as to form a fabric. A textile need not 
be of any particular size or strength or weight. 
~fhe use to which it may be 
put is also immaterilal and does not bear on its character as a textile. The fact·' 
that the 'dryer felts' are used only as absorbents of moisture in the process of 
manufacture in a paper manufacturing unit, cannot militate against 'dryer felts' 
falling within category of textiles, if otherwise they satisfy the description of 
textiles. 
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 refers to textile fabrics in this sense. 
[549 C-D, E-F, G-H] 
Ramavatar Budhaiprasrul v. Assista/11 Sales Tax Officer Ako/a, A.I.R. 1961 
SC 1325 and Mis. Motipur Jamindary Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, A.l.R. 1962 
SC 660, distinguished. 
C 
CIVIL A1 l'ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 1977. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and· Order dated 
11-5-1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in General Sales 
Tax Rc[ercncC' No 16/74. 
A. K. Sen, A. R. Lal and Ashok Grover for the Appellant. 
!. D. lain and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BIIAGWATI, J.-The short question which aris.es for determination 
in this nppeal is whether 'dryer felts' manufactured by the assess
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.