Commercial parlance test controls sales tax classification where exemption depends on proving the statutory identity of goods.

A claimant seeking sales tax exemption must prove that the goods sold answer the statutory description attracting the exemption, and declaration forms alone do not discharge that burden. Where the goods are not specifically defined in the statute, their character is determined by commercial parlance, not merely by the manufacturing process or the use of trade documents. On the facts discussed, bushes, valves, impellers and similar machined articles were treated as distinct goods with different trade names, and the exemption claim failed because they were not shown to be steel castings in commercial understanding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant had discharged the burden of proving that the sales were of goods covered by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, so as to claim exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. (ii) Whether the goods sold as bushes, valves, impellers and similar articles continued to be steel castings in commercial parlance.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant had discharged the burden of proving that the sales were of goods covered by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, so as to claim exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The claim for exemption depended on proof that the sales were to registered dealers in respect of goods referred to in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Mere production of declaration forms was not enough to establish that fact. The applicant produced no material showing how the purchasing dealers described the goods when ordering or receiving them, and the forms themselves did not prove the nature of the goods sold.

Conclusion: The burden of proof was not discharged, and the claim to exemption failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods sold as bushes, valves, impellers and similar articles continued to be steel castings in commercial parlance.

Analysis: The goods were processed and machined into distinct articles with different shapes, sizes and trade names, and were marketed accordingly. In the absence of a statutory definition, the relevant test was how the goods were understood in commercial parlance. The applicant was required to show that the articles were treated in trade as steel castings, but it failed to do so.

Conclusion: The goods were not proved to be steel castings in commercial parlance, and the exemption was rightly denied.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the disallowance of exemption under the sales tax law failed, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant to sales tax exemption bears the burden of proving that the goods satisfy the statutory description, and where a commodity is not defined in the statute, its character must be determined by its commercial parlance meaning rather than by the mere use of declaration forms or the manufacturing process alone.

---