STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus M/S.LAOPALAR.G. LTD.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 27-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 306 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
v. 
M/S.LAOPALAR.G. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2240 of2006) 
MARCH 27, 2014 
[1-J. L. DATTlJ ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
. 
. 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956- s:8(5)(b) - Notification 
issued under -
Construction and applicability of -
C Respondent-dealer engaged in manufacture of glassware -
Industrial unit of respondent-dealer situated in Jharkhand-
State Government issued notification S. 0. No. 25 , dated 
25. 06. 2001 directing that tax payable in respect of sale of all 
"types of glass and glass sheets" in course of interstate sale 
D or commerce.from any place of business in the State of 
Jharkhand shall be calculated at the rate of 3% -
Respondent-dealer claimed benefit of reduced rate of tax 
under the notification contending that glassware 
· manufactured by it is a form of glass and forms of glass are 
E also covered by the notification - Assessing Authority 
rejected the stand of respondent-dealer -High court, however, 
held that glassware manufactured by respondent-dealer is a 
type of glass and therefore, it is entitled to benefit of reduced 
rate of tax under the notification - Held: It is settled rule of 
F 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 is covered by it at all and if the dealer/ 
manufacturer falls within the notification, then provisions of 
G the notification be liberally construed - In the instant case, 
the State Government while issuing the notification used the 
expression :types of glass and not the expression "forms of 
glass" - In taxing statues the terms and expressions must 
be seen in their common and popular parlance, the two words 
H 
306. 
STATE OF JHARKHANDv. M/S.LAOPALAR.G. LTD.. 
307 
"type" and "form", the distinguishable feature in the particular A 
way in which the items exist- The expression "types of glass" 
could not have been intended to refer to or include "forms of 
glass" -
Glassware manufactured by respondent-dealer 
though made of glass cannot be considered or called as "type 
of glass" and since the notification only provided for reduction B 
in the rate of tax of types of glass and not for "forms of glass" 
which is manufactured by the respondent as glassware, the 
respondent would not be covered by the notification - Bihar 
Finance Act, 1981 .:.. s. 16. 
Union oflndia v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 
256: 1990 (2) SCR 659; .Gammon (I) Ltd. v. 
Commr. of Customs (2011) 12 SCC 499: 2011 
(7) SCR 195; Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of 
Jharkhend, Kartar Rolling Mills v. CCE, Eagle 
Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Govt. of India v. Indian 
Tobacco Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 396: 2005 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 859; Collector of Customs 
(Preventive) v. Ma/wa Industries Ltd. (2009) 12. 
SCC 73~: 2009 (2) SCR 120- referred to. 
Oxford Dictionary and Macniil/ian Dictionary -
referred to. 
· 
Case Law Reference: 
1990 (2) SCR 659 
referred to Para 20 
2011 (7) SCR 195 
referred to Para 21 
2005 (2) Sup~CR 859 
referred to Para 23 
2009 (2) SCR 120 
referred to Para 23 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2240 of 2006. 
From the judgment and order dated 22.06.2005 of the 
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W. P. (T) No. 4572 of 
2004. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Jayesh Gaurav (for Krishnanand Pandeya), Adv., for the 
B 
Appellants. 
S. D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate, and Ravi Bharuka (for Dr. 
Sushil Balwada),.Adv. forthe Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was passed: 
ORDER 
.. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (T] 
No.4572 of 2004, dated· 22.06.2005. By the impugned 
C judgment and order, the H.igh Court has set aside the letter 
issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 
Deog;:irh Circle, dated 13.05.2004, whereby the Assessing 
Authority has rejected the stand of the respondent-dealer that 
it is eligible to pay reduced rate of tax under the notification 
D S.O. No.25 (for ·short, "the notification") issued by the 
Government of Jharkhand, dated 25.06.2001 and directed the 
respondent-dealer to deposit taxes in relation to inter-State 
sales at the rate of 4 % . 
' 
2. The possible construction that could b~ placed on the 
- E 
aforesaid notification is the subject matter of this appeal. 
3. The conspectus of facts is: the respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.