Commercial parlance test excludes ball point pen refills from the taxable entry for pens and similar writing instruments.

Under common and commercial parlance, a ball point pen refill is not treated as a pen merely because it enables writing when inserted into the pen. The refill was regarded as a separate component of the writing instrument, not as a pen in ordinary trade or public understanding. Applying that test to entry 135 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Supreme Court held that the refill does not fall within the entry covering pens, pencils and fountain pens and is outside its scope.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refill of a ball point pen falls within entry 135 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which covers pens, pencils and fountain pens.

Analysis: The relevant test was the meaning of the entry in common and commercial parlance. The refill was not shown to be regarded as a pen in ordinary trade or public understanding. It was treated as a separate component of the ball point pen, capable of writing only when inserted into the pen, and not as a pen by itself. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the refill as the writing device merely because it enabled writing.

Conclusion: The refill does not fall within entry 135 and is outside the scope of the entry.

---