1974 (10) TMI 89 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court confirms bottle classification for tax, denies estoppel claim. Assessee awarded costs. Reference answered for revising authority.

Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Naini Glass Works

The court upheld the classification of the goods as bottles for tax assessment purposes and dismissed any estoppel claim against the assessee. The ... - Issues:1. Whether the goods in question were correctly classified as bottles for the purpose of sales tax assessment.2. Whether the assessee was estopped from claiming that the goods were bottles based on their designation as jars in sales bills.Detailed Analysis:The judgment of the court pertained to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, where the assessee initially declared turnover for own manufactured bottles. The Sales Tax Officer accepted the 2% tax rate on the turnover as an unclassified item. However, upon discovering that the goods were designated as 'jars' in sales bills, the Commissioner of Sales Tax contended that the turnover should be taxed at 10% as glassware, not exempt under a specific notification. The revising authority referred questions of law regarding the classification of the goods as bottles for tax purposes.The revising authority considered samples of the goods and concluded that they resembled containers commonly used for storing various substances. The term 'bottle' was not defined in the relevant legislation, leading to an analysis based on common understanding. The court referred to dictionary definitions of 'bottle' and 'jar' to distinguish between the two types of containers. It was noted that the goods in question were glass containers with screw top arrangements, typically used for packing materials like vaseline, honey, and face creams.The court rejected the department's argument that the goods were jars due to their wider necks, emphasizing that the term 'bottle' was of general application. The turnover was deemed to be rightly classified as bottles, exempt from tax. Despite the goods being labeled as jars in sales bills, the assessee consistently charged sales tax at 2%, indicating no inconsistency with the classification as bottles. The court held that the assessee was not estopped from claiming that the goods were bottles, affirming the revising authority's decision.In conclusion, the court upheld the classification of the goods as bottles for tax assessment purposes and dismissed any estoppel claim against the assessee. The assessee was awarded costs, and the reference was answered in favor of the revising authority's decision.