M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHAversusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.

                 [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1095 : 2023 INSC 892



                             CASE DETAILS

     M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY
   GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA
                                      v.
               COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3773 of 2011 Etc.)
                            OCTOBER 09, 2023
       [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
                              HEADNOTES
     Issue for consideration: Whether “tinted glass sheets” manufactured
by the assessee is liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass”
under the Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981 being Entry No.IV or as
unclassified item.
     UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 – s. 3A – Tinted glass sheets manufactured
by the assessee – Levy of tax:
       Held: Tinted glass sheet during the process of manufacture undergoes
a change and is different from a plain glass sheet, thus, exigible to tax as
‘all goods and wares made of glass’ under Entry No. IV of the notification
and attract a duty @15 % – Exclusion of plain glass panes, optical lens
would fall within the residuary clause attracting 10 % tax – There is no
vagueness in the notification dated 07.09.1981 and the entry No. IV is clear
and unambiguous – It has brought within the sweep “all goods and wares
made of glass” exigible to tax but not including “plain glass panes” and
the exemption being the creation of the statute itself, it has to be construed
strictly – Earlier the entry was “glassware” alone and the said entry was
subsequently amended and the intention of the legislature is explicitly clear
to include in its ambit any goods and wares made of glass – Intention of the
legislature of using expression “of” would reveal the purpose and the court
should presume that the legislature was reasonable – Furthermore, neither
the dictionary meaning nor the common parlance theory would come to the
rescue of the assessee – Thus, expression “all the goods and wares made of
glass” occurring in Notification must be taken to refer to all articles of glass
                                    1095
1096         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 13 S.C.R.


except those specifically excluded in the entry itself – Impugned judgment
does not call for interference. [Para 15, 17, 26, 29-31]
     Interpretation of statutes – Fiscal statutes – Interpretation of
provisions:
      Held: Word used in a statute must take its colour from the object it
seeks to achieve and also by considering the words with which it is associated
in the context. [Para 17]
     Words and Phrases – Word ‘Plain’ and ‘Panes’ – Meaning of.
[Para 23]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

     Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1989) 3 SCC 127 : [1989]
3 SCR 210; Maqsood Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
(1978) 41 STC 324 – distinguished.
      Mauri Yeast India Private Limited v. State of U.P. (2008) SCC 680;
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (2002) 9 SCC
545; State of Jharkhand and Others v. LA Opala RG Limited (2014) 15 SCC
136 : [2014] 14 SCR 306; Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh
v. Triveni Sheet Glass Limited and Others (1990) 76 STC 308 (FB)=1989
SCC online MP 346; Atul Glass industries (Pvt.) Ltd v. Collector of Central
Excise (1986) 3 SCC 480 : [1986] 3 SCR 126; Ramavatar Budhaiprasad
Etc. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer (1962) 1 SCR 279; M/s. Indo International
Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (1981) 2 SCC 528:
[1981] 3 SCR 294; Brindavan Bangle Stores and Ors vs Asstt. Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes and Another (2000) 1 SCC 674 : [2000] 1 SCR 97;
Commissioner of Sales Tax. Delhi Administration Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi
v. Baluja Glass Company 1979 SCC Online Del 300 : (1980) 46 STC 17;
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mohd. Ayub & Sons 1981 SCC Online All 971 :
(1982) 50 STC 187; HPL Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chandigarh (1997) 2 SCC 677; U.P. Glass Works Ltd. v. Commissioner
Sales Tax. UP, Lucknow. 1973 SCC Online All 422 : (1973) 32 STC 252 :
1973 Tax LR 2589; Commissioner Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Banaras Bead
Manufacturing Co., Varanasi 1968 SCC Online All 380 : (1970) 25 STC
100; Jalal Plastic Industries and Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. 1981 (8)
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                 1097
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
                COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.

ELT 653; Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dawoodbhoy M. Tayabally (1975)
36 STC 291; Nirlex Spares (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
(2008) 2 SCC 628 : [2008] 1 SCR 117; State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v.
Aryaverth Chawal Udyog & Others (2015) 17 SCC 324; Commissioner of
Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors. (2018) 9
SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 1191 – referred to.
     Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary 1989 Edition;
Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary; “Webster’s Dictionary; “Concise
Oxford Dictionary – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3773 of 2011.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2008 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in TTR No.1060 of 2003.
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 5914 and 5965-5966 of 2023.
     Appearances:
    S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., Anish Agarwal, Ajit Kumar, Pratik Kr. C.,
Advs. for the Appellant.
      R. K. Raizada, Sr. Adv., Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Ankit Khatri, Advs.
for the Respondent.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                               JUDGMENT
     ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
     1. The point that arises for our consideration is whether “tinted glass
sheets” manufactured by the appellants is liable to be taxed as “goods or
wares made of glass” under the Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981
being Entry No.IV or as unclassified item.
     2. In all these appeals, the above common question of law arises for our
consideration. The facts in brief which are common in Civil Appeal No.3773
1098         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 13 S.C.R.


of 2011 relates to the tax assessment years 1996-97, Civil Appeal No.5914
of 2023 relates to the notice issued for re-assessment for the tax assessment
years 1992-93 to 1996-97 and whereas Civil Appeal Nos.5965-66 of 2023
relates to the tax assessment years 1998-99 and 2003-04 respectively.
      3. The appellant deals with manufacturing and sale of sheet glass, tinted
glass, coloured glass, figured glass, void glass, wired glass, float glass and
neutral glass. After taking note of the books of accounts tendered during
the course of the assessment proceedings the assessing officer opined after
enquiry that tinted glass has been manufactured by assessee in a separate unit
and the process adopted for its manufacture is different from manufacture
of sheet glass. Assessing Officer has further opined in his order that raw
materials used in manufacture of tinted coloured glass are cobalt oxide,
carbon oxide, iron oxide etc. besides those used in the manufacture of sheet
glass. Assessing Officer has further held that the transparency and density of
tinted coloured glass is different from the simple glass surface as also solar
radiation on the absorption capacity of tinted coloured glass being more than
that of the simple sheet glass. He further concludes in his assessment orders
that in the ordinary and common parlance the tinted glass is not recognised
or understood as sheet glass.
      4. Hence, the assessing officer imposed tax @15% on the sale of the
goods by holding that said goods cannot be included in the category of
plain glass but under the category of “all goods and wares made of glass”
as reflected in the Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981. The appeals
filed against the said assessment orders came to be dismissed and the
imposition of tax @15% came to be upheld. The appellate authority also
relied on the meaning of the word “goods” as reflected in circular dated
28.09.1993 for arriving at a conclusion that only plain glass sheet has been
taken as unclassified item and not the goods in question. The assessee was
unsuccessful before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The contentions raised and
grounds urged contrary to the findings recorded by the assessing officer
and the appellate authority also did not find favour by the tribunal. In other
words, the orders of the authorities came to be affirmed by the tribunal. The
assessee pursued its grievance before the High Court by filing a revision
petition contending that plain glass panes which are commercially known
as sheet glass includes sheet glass both in tinted and non-tinted forms and
           M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                    1099
         GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
        COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

the entry “plain glass panes” cannot be interpreted to exclude the tinted
glass from its purview. The contention of the appellant that manufacturing
of tinted/coloured glass is the same as that of uncoloured glass also did not
find waiver by the tribunal. Hence, the revision application/petition came
to be dismissed.
      5. The assessment orders which related to the tax assessment years
1996-97, 1998-99 and 2003-04 were the subject matter of the appeals and
revision as noticed hereinabove. However, for the tax assessment years
1992-93 to 1996-97 notices under Section 21(2) came to be issued stating
thereunder that said goods were liable to be taxed @15% while tax @10%
inclusive of surcharge had been deposited. Hence, appellant was called upon
to showcase as to why sales tax @15% should not be levied on the sale of
the said goods. The notice issued for the tax assessment year 1996-97 came
to be adjudicated and an assessment order came to be passed on 12.9.2002
which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 3773 of 2011. The notices
demanding tax @15% for the tax assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97 came
to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 283 of 2001 before the High Court of
judicature at Allahabad which writ petition came to be dismissed in the light
of said issue having already been laid to rest in appellant’s case itself, in the
light of assessment order for the tax assessment year 1996-97 having been
passed by rejecting the similar contentions. Hence, in all these appeals the
common question of law has arisen and as such they are taken up together
for consideration, adjudication and determination thereof.
     6. We have heard the arguments of Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri R.K. Raizada, learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
       7. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-
assessee has contended that tinted glass is also sheet glass and as such attracts
10% tax and not 15% as claimed by the revenue. He would contend that the
only difference between both the glasses is colour. He would urge that tinted
glass and simple glass are same commodities and both do not fall under the
category of “goods and wares made of glass”. By placing reliance on several
judgments noted hereinbelow he would submit that tinted glass is glass in
its primary sense and no material difference in the manufacturing process of
tinted sheet glass and plain glass exists. He would elaborate his submissions
1100          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 13 S.C.R.


by contending that tinted glass is liable to be excluded as it is nothing but
“plain glass panes” and he drew our attention to the dictionary meaning
of the word “plain” and “panes” to contend that there is no distinction
between these two commodities. He submits that adding of colour will
not take away the tinted glass sheet out of the ambit of exclusion clause
of Entry No. 4 of Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981.
       8. He would rely upon the description of the expression “glass”
and “glass sheet” given in Indian Standard Specification for Flat
Transparent Sheet Glass (Third Revision) March, 1988 to substantiate
his contention. He would also submit that the revenue has failed in its
attempt to discharge the burden and demonstrate that a particular item
falls in a particular entry. He would submit that in the earlier assessment
year the assessing authority itself had treated the “tinted glass sheet”
as plain glass sheet and as such for the assessment year in question it
should be accordingly treated.
      9. In these factual circumstances the recourse to tax by treating the
commodity in question as falling within the residuary entry has to be
resorted to is also his contention. In support of his submissions, he has
relied upon the following judgments:
       (i) Atul Glass industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Collector of Central Excise
       And Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
       (1986) 3 SCC 480
       (ii) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. And Ors. VS State of Kerala and Ors.
       (1989) 3 SCC 127
       (iii) Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
       (2002) 9 SCC 545
       (iv) Brindavan Bangle Stores and Ors vs Asstt. Commissioner of
       Commercial Taxes and Another. (2000) 1 SCC 674
       (v) State of Jharkhand and others Vs LA Opala R.G. Limited.
       (2014) 15 SCC 136
       (vi) M/s. Indo International Industries Vs Commissioner of Sales
       Tax. Uttar Pradesh. (1981) 2 SCC 528
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                1101
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

     (vii) Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs Triveni Sheet
     Glass Works Ltd. And Others (1989) SCC Online MP 346: (1990)
     76 STC 308 (FB)
     (viii) Commissioner of Sales Tax. Delhi Administration. Vikas
     Bhawan, New Delhi Vs Baluja Glass Company 1979 SCC Online Del
     300: (1980) 46 STC 17
     (ix) Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs Mohd. Ayub & Sons 1981 SCC
     Online All 971: (1982) 50 STC 187
     (x) HPL CHEMICALS LTD. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise,
     Chandigarh (1997) 2 SCC 677
     (xi) U.P. Glass Works Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Sales Tax. UP, Lucknow.
     1973 SCC Online All 422: (1973) 32 STC 252 : 1973 Tax LR 2589
     (xii) Commissioner. Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow Vs Banaras Bead
     Manufacturing Co., Varanasi 1968 SCC Online All 380: (1970) 25
     STC 100
     (xiii) Jalal Plastic Industries And Ors. vs Union of India And Ors.
     1981 (8) ELT 653
     (xiv) Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Dawoodbhoy M. Tayabally
     (1975) 36 STC 291
     (xv) Nirlex Spares (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2008)
     2 SCC 628
     (xvi) State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog &
     Others (2015) 17 SCC 324
     (xvii) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar
     & Company & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 1
      10. Per contra, Shri R.K. Raizada, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent state would support the orders passed by the authorities
and the High Court and prays for dismissal of the appeals.
          FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT
     11. The learned High Court before whom grounds as urged by Shri
S.K. Bagaria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the assessee had been
1102          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 13 S.C.R.


urged was of the opinion that six (6) questions were required to be answered
and accordingly framed the following six (6) questions:
       (i) Whether the entry “All goods and wares made of glass”. excludes
       plain glass panes and treated the same as unclassified item, the Trade
       Tax Tribunal and lower authorities were justified to tax tinted/plaint
       glass panes as declared commodity?
       (ii) Whether in view of common parlance as well as user of the tinted/
       coloured glass panes and plain glass panes are identical, in spite of
       that the tax has been imposed on the coloured / tinted glass panes as
       declared commodity instead of unclassified item?
       (iii) Whether plain glass panes does not cover tinted/ coloured glass
       panes?
       (iv) Whether once the entry plain glass panes is specifically excluded
       from the entry “All goods and wares made of glass” the authorities
       were not justified in imposing tax on plain glass panes (coloured and
       tinted glass panes) as goods made of glass wares/
       (v) Whether in view of the fact that by mixing inch of colours no new
       commercial commodity comes into existence as tinted/coloured glass
       panes is a plain glass panes, still the tax can be imposed as declared
       commodity instead of unclassified item?
       (vi) Whether in any view of the matter, the order passed by the Trade
       Tax Tribunal is justified?
      12. The High Court has noted that authorities had taken note of the
fact that during survey conducted through Special Investigation Branch
Unit, Allahabad, it was noticed that manufacturing process adopted for
manufacturing of tinted sheet was different or distinct from the manufacturing
process adopted for manufacture of glass sheet and it was also noticed that
the tinted glass sheet was manufactured in a separate unit. The High Court
also noted that authorities had noted that density and transparency of the
tinted colour sheet glass is different from that of ordinary sheet glass and
the solar absorption power of tinted coloured glass sheet is much more than
plain sheet glass and in the market or in the common parlance ‘tinted glass
sheet’ is not treated as plain sheet glass.
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                   1103
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

                             OUR FINDINGS
       13. The tug of war between the assesses and the revenue in these
appeals revolves around the plea of assessee that tinted glasses manufactured
by it falls under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3A namely residuary
clause and as such tax is to be levied @ 10%; whereas revenue is contending
that it would fall under Entry No.4 of the notification No.5784 dated
07.09.1981 which Notification has been issued in exercise of the power
conferred under clause(d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act. It
is in this background, the rival contentions requires to be examined and it
would be apt and appropriate to extract Section 3A of U.P. Trade Tax Act,
1948. It reads as under:
           “Section 3-A: Rates of tax
     (1) Except as provided in Section 3-D, the tax payable by a dealer
     under this Act shall be levied:--
           (a) on the turnover in respect of “declared goods”, at the point
           of sale to the consumer at the maximum rate for the time being
           specified in Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or
           where the State Government, by notification, declares any other
           single point or a lesser rate, at such other point or at such lesser
           rate;
           (b) the turnover in respect of such goods), other than the
           goods referred to in clause (a), at such point and at such rate,
           not exceeding fifty per cent, as the State Government may, by
           notification, declare, and different points and different rates may
           be declared in respect of different goods
           (c) on the turnover in respect of goods, other than those referred
           to in clause (a) or clause (b), at the point of sale by manufacturer
           or importer at the rate of ten percent.
     (2) Every notification made under this section shall, as soon as may
     be after it is made, be laid before each House of the State Legislature,
     while it is in session, for a total period of not less than fourteen days,
     extending in its one session or more than one successive sessions;
     and shall, unless some later date is appointed, take effect from the
1104          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       date of its publication in the Gazette subject to such modifications
       or annulments as the two Houses of the Legislature may during the
       said period agree to make, so, however, that any such modification
       or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
       previously done thereunder except that any imposition, assessment,
       levy or collection of tax or penalty shall be subject to the said
       modification or annulment.
       (3) Where the State Government has declared any point or rate at
       which the tax payable by a dealer under the Act be levied under
       clause (b), clause (c), clause (c-1), clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-
       section (1) as existed immediately before the commencement of the
       Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2000 and such
       declaration in force on such commencement, such rate or point of
       tax shall continue to be in force after such commencement, until
       modified or rescinded.”
      14. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 3-A would indicate that
the tax payable by the dealer under the Act shall be levied under clause
(a) on the turnover in respect of “declared goods”, at the point of sale to
the consumer at the maximum rate for the time being specified in Section
15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or where the State Government, by
notification, declares any other single point or a lesser rate, at such other
point or at such lesser rate; under clause (b) on the turnover in respect of
such goods, other than the goods referred to in clause (a), at such point
and at such rate, not exceeding fifty per cent, as the State Government
may, by notification, declare, and different points and different rates may
be declared in respect of different goods; under clause (c) on the turnover
in respect of goods, other than those referred to in clause (a) or clause (b),
at the point of sale by manufacturer or importer @10 percent.
      15. The Notification No. ST-2-5784/X-10(1)-80 dated 7/9/1981
issued in exercise of the power conferred under clause(d) of Sub-section
(1) of Section 3A of the Act specifies that under Entry No. 4 reads as under:
       “4. All goods and glass wares made of glass but not including plain
       glass panes optical lenses, hurricane lantern, chimneys bottles and
       phials, glass beads, clinical syringes, Therma Meters and scientific
       apparatus and instruments made of glass.”
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                1105
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

      Thus, on a plain reading of the above entry it would leave no manner
of doubt that all goods and wares made of glass would fall within the
definition of the said entry or in other words, all goods and wares made
of glass would fall within Entry No.IV of the aforesaid notification and
thus attract a duty @15 %. The exclusion of plain glass panes, optical
lens as indicated therein would fall within the residuary clause attracting
10 % tax.
      16. In the aforesaid background, it requires to be examined in the
facts that has unfolded in the present case as to whether the tinted glass
sheet is to be treated as equivalent to plain glass sheets/panes or not.
     17. Tracing the history of the entry can be noticed as under:
        (i) Glass wares                   1.4.48 to 31.3.56
        (ii) Glasswares other than        1.4.56 to 19.5.76
           Hurricane lantern, chimneys,
           optical lenses and bottles.
     (iii) All the goods and wares made
         of glass but not including plain
         glass, panes, optical lenses,
          Hurricane lantern, chimneys,
          bottles and phials glass beads,
          clinical syringes, thermometer
          made of glass.
     (iv) All the goods and wares made           7.9.91 till date
        of glass but not including plain
        glass, panes, opticals lenses,
        Hurricane lantern, chimneys,
        bottles and phials glass beads,
        clinical syringes, thermometer
1106          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 13 S.C.R.


         and scientific apparatus and
         instruments made of glass.
      There is no dispute to the fact that earlier the entry was “glassware”
alone and the said entry was subsequently amended by adding word “all
goods” within its scope and ambit and this widening of the expression
would indicate the intention of the legislature to include all goods
and wares of glass unless excluded, in other words the intention of
the legislature is explicitly clear to include in its ambit any goods and
wares made of glass. The meaning of the word “of” also acquires the
significance. The intention of the legislature of using this expression “of”
would reveal the purpose and it would be the endeavour of the court to put
itself in the chair of the legislature and presume that the legislature was
reasonable as held by this Court in Mauri Yeast India Private Limited
Vs. State of U.P. (2008) SCC 680 wherein the expression “chemicals of
all kinds” was interpreted. It is well settled principle that the word used
in a statute must take its colour from the object it seeks to achieve and
also by considering the words with which it is associated in the context.
     18. In the matter of Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs. Union
of India and others (2002) 9 SCC 545, this Court was of the view that
canon of construction commands that commodity commonly known in
the market would be the basis for determination of its entry. It came to
be further held:
       “5. By a catena of decisions it is settled law that an expression used
       in a taxing statute for describing a commodity must be given the
       meaning which is generally given to it by a person in the trade or
       in the market of commodities and should be interpreted in the sense
       the person conversant with the subject-matter of the statute and
       dealing with it would attribute to it. (See Ramavatar Budhaiprasad
       v. Asstt. STO [(1961) 12 STC 286 : AIR 1961 SC 1325] .) The
       High Court approached the matter from this angle and reached the
       correct conclusion that the expression “articles made of plastics”
       used in Tariff Item 15-A(2) does not cover such articles which are
       not directly made from the material indicated in sub-item (1) but
       are made from articles made out of such material.”
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                   1107
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

      19. Reiterating the position with regard to interpretation of provisions
in fiscal statues and adherence to the principle of popular meaning as
understood in their common and popular ex-parlance in the matter of State
of Jharkhand and others Vs. LA Opala RG Limited- (2014) 15 SCC 136
it came to be held:
     “22. 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. According
     to the Oxford Dictionary, whereas the meaning of the expression
     “types” is “kind, class, breed, group, family, genus”; the meaning of
     the word “form” is “visible shape or configuration of something” or the
     “style, design, and arrangement in an artistic work as distinct from its
     content”. Similarly, Macmillan Dictionary defines “type” as “a group
     of people or things with similar qualities or features that make them
     different from other groups” and “form” as “the particular way in which
     something appears or exists or a shape of someone or something”.
     Therefore, “types” are based on the broad nature of the item intended
     to be classified and in terms of “forms”, the distinguishable feature
     is the particular way in which the items exist. An example could be
     the item “wax”. The types of wax would include animal, vegetable,
     petroleum, mineral or synthetic wax whereas the form of wax could
     be candles, lubricant wax, sealing wax, etc.”
      20. In the instant case, assessee has placed reliance on the full
bench Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Triveni Sheet Glass
Limited and others, (1990) 76 STC 308 (Full Bench)=1989 SCC online
MP 346 whereunder the issue relating to entry of glass sheets had come up
for consideration namely whether glass sheets falls within the ambit of the
expression “goods made of glass and glassware”. This judgment which was
relied upon under the impugned order came to be distinguished as under:
     “Then, reliance was placed on CST, Madhya Pradesh Vs Triveni Sheet
     Glass Works Limited (1990), 76 STC 308, a full bench decision of the
     Madhya Pradesh High Court. Therein the question was with regard
     to the taxability of glass sheets. The relevant portion of the Entry was
1108          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       “goods made of glass and glasswares”. The full bench in para 7 noticed
       that undoubtedly there is distinction between glass, goods or articles
       made of glass. After doing so, it quoted a passage from the order of
       the Board wherein it was held by the Board that glass sheet, is glass
       simplicitor. Glass sheet is, therefore, according to the Full Bench a
       primary product which can be used for producing the goods or articles
       made of glass and it cannot be equivated with goods or articles made of
       glass. The Full Bench expressed its dissent with the decision reported
       in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Mohanlal
       Ramkisan Nathani (1955) 6 STC 136 and Tribuwandas Golabchand
       and Brothers, Nagpur V. State of Maharashtra (1965) 16 STC 452
       (Bombay) and CST Vs Bombay Glasshouse (1986) 63 STC 350 (M.P.).
       The Full Bench was of the opinion that in these decisions, it was not
       taken into account that the glass sheet is common parlance is glass
       simplicitor” and glass sheet is a primary product used for producing
       articles of goods made of glass. Glass sheet is a primary product.” This
       distinguishes the case from the facts of the present case.”
      21. This Court in Atul Glass industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of
Central Excise, (1986) 63 STC 322 has held the test commonly applied to
determine whether an article after subjecting to manufacturing processes
becomes a different article or remains the same is: how is the product
identified by the class or section of the people dealing with or using such
product. It came to be held:
       “8. The test commonly applied to such cases is: How is the product
       identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the
       product? That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does
       not contain any definition. Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of
       Haryana [(1979) 1 SCC 82 : 1979 SCC (Tax) 38 : AIR 1979 SC 300
       : (1978) 42 STC 433]. It is generally by its functional character that a
       product is so identified. In CST, U.P. v. Macneill & Barry Ltd., Kanpur
       [(1986) 1 SCC 23 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 155] this Court expressed the
       view that ammonia paper and ferro paper, used for obtaining prints and
       sketches of site plans could not be described as paper as that word was
       used in common parlance. On the same basis the Orissa High Court
       held in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd. [(1974) 33
     M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                     1109
   GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
  COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

STC 333 (Ori)] that stencil paper could not be classified as paper for
the purposes of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. It is a matter of common
experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary
function. It is only logical that it should be so. When a consumer buys
an article, he buys it because it performs a specific function for him.
There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer between the
article and the need it supplies in his life. It is the functional character
of the article which identifies it in his mind. In the case of a glass
mirror, the consumer recalls primarily the reflective function of the
article more than anything else. It is a mirror, an article which reflects
images. It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the word glass
is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has been used as a medium for
manufacturing the mirror. The basic or fundamental character of the
article lies in its being a mirror. It was observed by this Court in Delhi
Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(1980) 4 SCC
71 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 548 : AIR 1980 SC 1552 : (1980) 3 SCR 1109]
which was a case under the sales tax law: (SCC pp. 75-76, para 7)
      “... In determining the meaning or connotation of words and
expressions describing an article or commodity the turnover of which
is taxed in a sales tax enactment, if there is one principle fairly well
settled it is that the words or expressions must be construed in the
sense in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the
consumer. It is they who are concerned with it, and it is the sense in
which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the
legislative intention when the statute was enacted.”
That was also the view expressed in Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v.
Union of India [(1985) 22 ELT 3] . Where the goods are not marketable
that principle of construction is not attracted: Indian Aluminium Cables
Ltd. v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 284 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 383] .
The question whether thermometers, lactometers, syringes, eyewash
glasses and measuring glasses could be described as “glassware” for
the purpose of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was answered by the
Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v Janta Medical Stores [(1976) 37
STC 33 (Ori)] in the negative. To the same effect is the decision of this
Court in Indo International Industries v. CST, Uttar Pradesh [(1981) 2
1110           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       SCC 528 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 130 : AIR 1981 SC 1079 : (1981) 3 SCR
       294] where hypodermic clinical syringes were regarded as falling
       more accurately under the entry relating to “hospital equipment and
       apparatus” rather than under the entry which related to “glasswares”
       in the UP Sales Tax Act.”
      In the aforesaid Judgment, the question that arose for consideration
was under what tariff item ‘glass mirror’ would fall, and glass screens fitted
in motor vehicles as wind screens, rear screens, window screens would fall
under which competing tariff item. Adjudicating this question, this Court held
that glass sheet after successive stage of processing undergoes a complete
transformation to become a glass mirror and a different commercial product
with a reflective surface. It was further held, after this process glass sheet
is reduced to a mere medium and if any part of the coating is scratched
and removed that particular area of the glass mirror will cease to be a glass
mirror. It was further held that said commodity is referred to as a glass mirror
only because the word “glass” which is descriptive of the mirror and basis
or fundamental character of the article lies in its being a mirror cannot be
regarded as glass. Thus, the legislative intent is clear as regards the product,
namely, the primary product is not coupled with goods and articles made of
that primary product. Thus, it would emerge from the test commonly applied
to determine whether an article after subjecting it to manufacturing process
becomes a different article or remains same and as held in the aforesaid
Judgment it will have to be examined as to how the product is identified
by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product. This
test acquires significance particularly when the statue does not contain any
definition and by its functional character a product is so identified.
     22. In fact, the High Court has noticed this fact and has recorded the
following finding:
             “The said issue can be resolved from the point of view as to how
       the persons who are in the business understands the meaning of plain
       glass sheets in commercial words, as noticed by the tribunal, plain glass
       sheets means colourless glass or having a colour of water. The tribunal
       has noticed that a dealer of glass sheet, is not required to exhibit all
       kinds of sheet glass including coloured one when a customer demands
       plain glass sheet. Unless a coloured glass is asked for, a dealer exhibits
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                  1111
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

     the (uncoloured) plain glass sheet. The said finding of the tribunals
     essentially a finding of fact. In common parlance also, in window
     and doors, plain glass sheet i.e. uncoloured glass sheets are used
     generally These glass sheets are also used as table top, in showcase
     and also as racks in Almirah. It may be noted that only plain glass
     sheets which is not coloured is used generally.”
      23. Now, we proceed to note the simple dictionary meaning assigned
with regard to “plain glass panes” in order to examine the claim of assessee
to extend the meaning assigned to “plain glass sheet” to “tinted glass
sheet.”
     PLAIN:
     Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary 1989 Edition
     defines “Plain” as-
     “Plain (plan) adj. 1. clear to distinct to the eye or ear: a plain trail
     to the river, to stand in plain view. 2. one’s meaning plain, a dislike
     of the subject that was plain. 3. conveying the meaning clearly and
     simply: easily understood; plain 4. downright; sheer; utter; plain
     folly, plain stupidly. 5. free from ambiguity or evasion; candid;
     outspoken: the plain truth of the matter. 6. without special pretension,
     superiority elegance, etc.; ordinary: plain people. 7. not beautiful:
     physically unattractive or undistinguished: a plain face; a childhood
     fear that she would be plain. 8. without intricates or difficulties. 9.
     ordinary, simple, or unostentatious: Although she was a duchess, her
     manners were attractively plain. 10. with little or no embellishment,
     decoration, or enhancing elaboration: a plain blue suit. 11. without a
     pattern, figure, or device: a plain fabric. 12. not rich, highly seasoned,
     or elaborately prepared, as food: plain, fresh, substantial fare; a plain
     diet. 13, flat or level: plain country. 14. unobstructed, clear or open,
     as ground, a space, etc. 15. Cards, being other than a face card or a
     trump. - adv. 16. clearly and simply: He’s just plain stupid - n. 17.
     an area of and not significantly higher than adjacent areas and with
     relatively minor difference in elevation, commonly less than 500 feet,
     within the area. 18. the Plain, Fr. Hist. (in the National Assembly) the
     loosely organised party of moderate republicans: so called because
     its members occupied the lowest seats or benches. Cf. mountain (def.
1112           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       4). 19. The plains. See Great Plains. [ME OF <L plan (us) flat, level,
       plan (um) flat country)- plan ly, adv. - plain ness, n.
            In the Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary audited by
       Catherine Soanes the word “Plain” means “1. simple or ordinary 2.
       without a pattern 3. unmarked 4. easy to see or understand..........”
       In the Dictionary by Webster the word “plain” means as follows:
             “(plein) 1. adj. easy to see or understand simple, not embellished or
       complicated absolute, complete, plain madness (of food) unelaborated,
       not having unusual or spicy ingredients bluntly frank unsophisticated
       lacking physical beauty, but not ugly 2.n. a large expanse of level, open
       country 3. adv. Manifestly, it’s just plain wrong clearly, candidly, she
       told him plain [KO F. fr.L]”
       PANE:
            “Webster’s Dictionary defines “Pane” as-
            Pane - a single sheet of glass in a window, greenhouse etc. a
            division of a window etc, containing such a sheet of glass in a
            frame a flat side or edge of a many-sided object.”
            “Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “Pane” as - a single sheet
            of glass in a window or door. 2. A rectangular division of a
            chequered pattern etc..”
      24. A plain reading of the above definitions would not detain us for too
long to brush aside the contentions of the learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant-assessee, inasmuch as, “panes” means glass sheets in small
sizes used in doors and windows and they cannot be treated as glass sheets
as panes or made out of glass sheets by cutting it into different sizes.
      25. Yet another contention was raised that commodity remains the
same even after the manufacturing process and applying the said principle
to the product on hand, namely tinted glass sheets would continue to be the
genus of the species namely “plain glass panes” by relying upon Gujarat
Steel Tubes Ltd. V. State of Kerala (1989) 3 SCC 127 and Maqsood
Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (1978) 41 STC 324.
Both the Judgments are distinguishable on facts, and reasoning adopted
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                  1113
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

under the impugned order is just and proper for reasons more than one;
firstly in Gujarat Steel Tubes matter (supra) it was noticed that the steel
tube was galvanized and by virtue of the same, it did not cease to be a steel
tube inasmuch as its structure or its function is not altered and it remained
as a steel tube. Whereas in the instant case the tinted glass sheet during
the process of manufacture has undergone a change and as noticed by the
authorities it has more radiation absorption capacity and is also different
in its transparency and density than a plain glass sheet or in other words
the commodity did not remain the same after the manufacturing process.
Secondly, in Maqsood Mohammad matter (supra) it was noticed that after the
manufacturing process the product “kala namak” remained as an edible salt
or in other words it was a species of salt and as such it was held exempted
from tax and cannot be taxed under Section 3A of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
The analogy noted hereinabove to distinguish Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited
(supra) is squarely applicable to distinguish the principles enunciated in
Maqsood Mohammad case, which was on facts obtained therein.
      26. When the assessee is contending that an item/product falls under
the residuary category, necessarily the burden is on the assessee to prove
the said fact and in the instant case, the business premises of the appellant
was inspected by Special Investigation Branch of the Department and it
was revealed that “tinted glass sheet” was being manufactured through a
different process. The process so adopted has been succinctly explained in
the Assessment Order to the following effect:
     “An intensive inquiry XXX Rs. 9,47,28, 446.00. In the inquiry held by
     Allahabad Unit, this fact has come to the light that the tinted coloured
     glass is manufactured by the trader in a separate unit and the raw
     material used in its manufacture is also different from the raw material
     used in the manufacture of sheet glass. That is the raw materials used in
     the manufacture of tinted coloured glass are cobalt oxide, carbon oxide,
     iron oxide etc. besides those used in the manufacture of sheet glass.
     A specific process is adopted for its manufacturing. The transparency
     density of tinted coloured glass is different from the simple glass
     surface. The solar radiation absorption capacity of tinted coloured
     glass is more than that of the simple sheet glass. In ordinary common
     parlance of the market the tinted glass is not understood as sheet glass.
1114          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       Therefore, the plain sheet of tinted coloured glass cannot be deemed
       as sheet glass. After apprising XXX tax liability shall be determined.”
       In this background, when the contention of Mr. Bagaria, learned senior
counsel, appearing for the appellant contending that “plain glass panes”
would include ‘tinted glass sheet’ is examined, same has to be rejected as
the general meaning of “glassware” could not have been attached to ‘tinted
glass’ sheet or the exclusion would have been specific in Entry (IV) itself.
In our considered opinion, the expression “all the goods and wares made
of glass” occurring in Notification dated:07.09.1981 must be taken to refer
to all articles of glass except those specifically excluded in the entry itself.
      27. It would not be out of context or in other words it would be
apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ramavatar
Budhaiprasad Etc. Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer - (1962) 1 SCR 279
wherein challenge to the imposition of sales tax on beetle leaves by the
revenue came to be upheld by arriving at a conclusion that the legislature
by using two distinct and different items that is item 6 “vegetables” item
36 “beetle leaves” had indicated its intention. It was held that the word
“vegetables” in taxing statues is to be understood as in common parlance
that is denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or
in a farm and are used for the table. It was further held:
       “3. The Schedule was amended …………... But this word must be
       construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of
       view but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined
       in the Act and being a word of every day us it must be construed in its
       popular sense meaning “that sense which people conversant with the
       subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it”.
       It is to be construed as understood in common language; Craies on
       Statute Law, p.153 (5th Edn.). It was so held………………..
      28. This Court examined in M/s. Indo International Industries vs
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (1981) 2 SCC 528 almost similar
issue namely whether hypodermic clinical syringes could be regarded as
“glass ware” under Entry 39 of First Schedule of UP Sales Tax Act, 1948 and
negatived the plea of the assessee by opining that in taxing statues, words
and phrases must be construed as understood in popular or commercial
parlance and not technically. It came to be further held:
          M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY                   1115
        GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHA v.
       COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

     “5. Having regard to the aforesaid well settled test the question is
     whether clinical syringes could be regarded as “glassware” falling
     within Entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act? It is true that the
     dictionary meaning of the expression “glassware” is “articles made of
     glass” (see Webster’s New World Dictionary). However, in commercial
     sense glass ware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes,
     thermometers, lactometers, and the like which have specialised
     significance and utility. In popular or commercial parlance a general
     merchant dealing in “glassware” does not ordinarily deal in articles
     like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers, etc. which articles
     though made of glass, are normally available in medical stores or
     with the manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely
     that consumer would ask for such articles from a glass ware shop. In
     popular sense when one talks of glass ware such specialised articles
     like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like do not
     come up to one’s mind. Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we
     are clearly of the view that the clinical syringes which the assessee
     manufactures and sells cannot be considered as “glass ware” falling
     within Entry 39 of the First Schedule of the Act.”
       29. In the aforesaid background, we are of the considered view that
neither the dictionary meaning nor the common parlance theory would
come to the rescue of the appellant. The arguments canvassed by the learned
senior counsel with regard to flat transparent sheet glass as indicated in the
Indian Standards Specification has also received the attention of the High
Court and has been dealt with under the impugned order and distinguished
it on facts in favour of the revenue, and rightly so, for the reasons indicated
thereunder which we are of the considered view is in tune with the settled
principles of law noted hereinabove and thereby impugned order does not
call for our interference.
      30. There is no vagueness in the notification dated 07.09.1981 and the
entry No. 4 is clear and unambiguous namely it has brought within the sweep
“all goods and wares made of glass” exigible to tax but not including “plain
glass panes” and the exemption being the creation of the statute itself, it has
to be construed strictly and even if there is any vagueness in the exemption
clause must go to the benefit of the revenue. [(2018) 9 SCC 1 paras 36 to 38]
1116           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2023] 13 S.C.R.


      31. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, we are of the considered
view that the impugned judgments would not call for interference and
accordingly the appeals are dismissed. The notice for reassessment dated
08.02.2001 issued in Civil Appeal No.5914 of 2023 (Special Leave
Petition(c) No.29516 of 2013) for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97
is upheld. No order as to costs.


Headnotes prepared by:                                    Appeals dismissed.
Nidhi Jain