Common parlance test governs sales tax classification of glass marbles, while pre-reply revision notices were left undisturbed.

Where a sales tax entry uses an undefined commercial expression, classification turns on the common parlance understanding of dealers and consumers, not merely on the material composition of the goods. Glass marbles could not be treated as glassware only because they were made of glass; the assessment on that point was set aside for fresh consideration on evidence. A challenge to revision notices issued before the assessee filed a reply failed because the notices were not shown to be without jurisdiction and the assessee still had an opportunity to place material before the authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether glass marbles, in the absence of a definition of "glassware" in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, were to be classified as glassware under entry 109 of the Second Schedule or as playthings under section 5(1) of the Act on the doctrine of common parlance; (ii) whether the notices issued under section 21(4) of the Act were liable to be interfered with at the stage when the petitioner had not yet submitted a reply.

Issue (i): Whether glass marbles, in the absence of a definition of "glassware" in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, were to be classified as glassware under entry 109 of the Second Schedule or as playthings under section 5(1) of the Act on the doctrine of common parlance.

Analysis: The expression "glassware" was not defined in the Act. Where a tariff entry uses an undefined commercial expression, its meaning must be determined according to the understanding of dealers and customers in the market. The fact that the goods were made of glass did not by itself conclude the classification. The material before the assessing authority showed that the question whether glass marbles were understood as glassware or as playthings required evidence and application of the common parlance test, and the assessing authority erred in rejecting that approach without considering such evidence.

Conclusion: The turnover of glass marbles could not be treated as glassware merely because the articles were made of glass, and the assessment order on that point was liable to be quashed with a direction for fresh assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices issued under section 21(4) of the Act were liable to be interfered with at the stage when the petitioner had not yet submitted a reply.

Analysis: The petitioner approached the Court before showing cause to the notices. The notices themselves were not without jurisdiction, and the petitioner had an opportunity to place material before the Deputy Commissioner, who was required to decide the matter in the light of the same principles after considering the reply.

Conclusion: The notices were not liable to be quashed at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The assessment on glass marbles was set aside for reconsideration, while the challenge to the revision notices failed, leaving the petitioner only partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sales tax entry uses an undefined commercial expression, classification must be determined by the doctrine of common parlance on the basis of market understanding, and not solely by the material composition of the goods.

---