Rubberised cotton fabrics stayed exempt under the adopted statutory definition until the 1975 amendment.

A writ petition was entertained despite an available statutory revisional remedy because the challenge involved a recurring jurisdictional issue and repeated resort to the statutory forum would have been futile. The article notes that, for sales tax purposes, "cotton fabrics" under rule 3(28) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, took the meaning adopted from the Central Excises and Salt Act definition, which was broad enough to include fabrics made wholly or partly of cotton. Rubberisation did not destroy that character, so the exemption applied up to 6 April 1975; after the 7 April 1975 amendment, rubberised fabrics were expressly excluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for failure to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy; (ii) Whether rubberised cotton fabrics fell within the expression "cotton fabrics" under rule 3(28) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, so as to be exempt from sales tax, and whether the exemption could continue for the subsequent period up to 6th April, 1975.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for failure to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The availability of a statutory revisional remedy did not, on the facts, compel refusal of writ relief. The petition challenged a jurisdictional error on an identical issue recurring over successive assessment periods, and the Court accepted that repeated resort to the statutory forum would be futile, costly, and unnecessary. The Court treated the matter as fit for writ intervention despite the alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether rubberised cotton fabrics fell within the expression "cotton fabrics" under rule 3(28) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, so as to be exempt from sales tax, and whether the exemption could continue for the subsequent period up to 6th April, 1975.

Analysis: The expression "cotton fabrics" in the Bengal Sales Tax Rules borrowed the meaning given in item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court held that the statutory definition was broad enough to include fabrics manufactured wholly or partly from cotton, and that the mere addition of rubber did not take the goods outside the defined expression. The Gujarat decision relied on by the authorities was distinguished as turning on different statutory language and circumstances. The Court also held that the same construction governed the subsequent period until the amendment of 7th April, 1975, after which rubberised fabrics were expressly excluded from exemption.

Conclusion: Rubberised cotton fabrics were exempt under rule 3(28) for the period in question up to 6th April, 1975, and the assessments and demands made on the contrary were without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim succeeded for the disputed pre-amendment period, and the impugned assessments and consequential demands relating to rubberised cotton fabrics were quashed while leaving the rest of the turnover unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal rule adopts by reference a statutory definition, the adopted meaning must be applied according to its terms, and a process that does not remove the essential character of the goods will not by itself take them outside the defined exempt category.

---