M/S SIRDANWAL INDUSTRIESversusCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 836
- Decided
- 7 August 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
An alloy containing any of the metals listed in the notification, even if it contains more than one of them, falls within the entry and is therefore classifiable as "brassware" for sales tax purposes.
Summary
Mis Sirdanwal Industries appealed against the Commissioner of Sales Tax challenging the classification of its brass wire under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948. The issue was whether the brass wire, an alloy of copper and zinc, fell within the entry "copper, tin, nickel, or zinc, or any other alloy containing any of these metals" in the 6 October 1971 notification. The High Court held that because the alloy contained more than one of the listed metals, it was excluded from the entry. The Supreme Court rejected this view, interpreting the entry to cover any alloy containing any of the specified metals, irrespective of the presence of multiple such metals, and relied on the decision in Mis Saru Smelting (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1993). Consequently, the Court held that brass wire is covered by the entry, allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the revision petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether brass wire, an alloy of copper and zinc, is classifiable as "brassware" under the entry "copper, tin, nickel or zinc, or any other alloy containing any of these metals" in the 1971 notification.
- Whether the presence of more than one of the listed metals in an alloy excludes it from the said entry.
Subjects
Judgment
MIS SIRDANWAL INDUSTRIES A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
AUGUST 7, 1996
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B
U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948:
S.3-A(2)-'Brass Wire'-Revemte classifyi11g it u11der 'brassware'
whereas the ma11ufacturer c/aimi11g it to be classifiable as a11 alloy under C
Notification dated 6.10.1971 mentioni11g copper, ti11, 11ickel, or zinc. or any
other alloy co11tai11i11g any of these metals-Held 'brass wire' manufactured
by the assessee is an alloy which colllains copper a11d zi11c a11d, therefore, falls
withi11 the e11try i11 the 11otificatio11.
Mis. Saru Smelti11g (P) Ltd. v. Com111issio11er of Sales Tax, Lucknow, D
[1993] Supp. 3 SCC 97, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 722-23
of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.79 of the Allahabad High E
Court in S.T.R. Nos. 825-26 of 1978.
U.A. Rana, R. Tyagi, M.K. Mohan, M.J.S. Ruppal for Gagrat & Co.
for the Appellants.
R.C. Verma, M.N. Mural and R.B. Misra for the Respondent. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The order under appeal is 9f the High Court at Allahabad in revision
petitions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the U.P. Sales Tax
act. The question for consideration was whether brass wire manufactured ·G
by the assessee was classifiable as 'brassware' as claimed by the Revenue
or under a notification dated 6.10.1971 issued under sub-section (2) of
Section 3-A which mentioned "copper, tin, nickel or zinc, or any other alloy
containing any of these metals".
The High Court rightly proceeded upon the basis that the brass wire H
343
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A manufactured by the assessee was an alloy of copper and zinc. It, however,
rejected the argument that, as such, it was covered under the aforemen-
tioned entry in the notification. It emphasised the words 'any of these
metals' in the entry and observed that if an alloy consisted of more than
one of the metals mentioned in the entry, it would not be covered by it. An
alloy, in its view, with copper or tin or nickel or zinc would be covered by
B the entry, but an alloy comprising more than one of these metals was
beyond its scope. The High Court also relied upon the subsequent entry
in the notification and observed that the use of the word 'all' in that entry
and its omission in the relevant entry indicated that the intention was to
confine the lower rate of tax only to those alloys which comprised only one
of the metals named.
c
On a plain reading of the entry, we find it difficult to agree. Brass is
an alloy. It contains copper and zinc. It, therefore, contains a metal
mentioned in the entry. The entry applies to an alloy containing any of
these metals. It applies, therefore, to brass. It is of no consequence that
D the alloy (brass) contains more than one of the metals mentioned in the
entry.
The conclusion that we have reached is fortified by the judgment of
this Courl i:o Mis Sam Smelting (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Lucknow, [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 97, where the entry was very similar, namely,
11
E copper, tin, nicke) or any other alloy containing any of these metals only1'.
This Court said :
"The ·emphasis in the entry is - either it should be pure copper,
tin, nickel or zinc and if it is an alloy containing two or more metals,
it must be an alloy containing these metals only".
F
Since the alloy in question before the Court there contained phosphorous,
which was not one of the metals mentioned in the entry, the alloy was held
to fall outside the entry.
Brass wire, therefore, falls within the entry in the said notification.
G
The appeals are allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside.
The revision petitions filed before the High Court are dismissed.
The shall be no order as to costs.
R.P. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.