Common parlance classification governs tax entry disputes; water for injection is treated as a medicinal article, not ordinary water.

Classification of goods under a taxing entry must follow the common parlance test, not scientific or technical meaning; on that approach, "water for injection" is treated as a medicinal article rather than water simpliciter and falls outside the tax-free water entry. A prior determination order under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act does not acquire perpetual finality for later periods, because each assessment period is separate and fresh determination may be made when the statutory or notification regime changes. Once the later notification came into force, the authority was justified in applying that changed fiscal position and not extending the earlier determination further.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether "water for injection" falls within entry 13 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 as water simpliciter, or falls within entry 26(1) of Schedule II, Part A as a medicinal article; (ii) whether the earlier determination order under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 had finality so as to bind the Sales Tax Department for all future periods; (iii) whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in giving effect to the determination only from the date of the notification and not prospectively from the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether "water for injection" falls within entry 13 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 or within entry 26(1) of Schedule II, Part A.

Analysis: Classification under a taxing entry must be made according to the popular or common parlance test, and not by scientific or technical meaning. On that test, a customer or dealer would not treat "water for injection" as water simpliciter. The commodity is used for medicinal purposes and in medical treatment, and therefore answers the description of medicinal water rather than ordinary water. It does not fall within the tax-free entry for water in Schedule I.

Conclusion: The commodity was correctly classified under entry 26(1) of Schedule II, Part A, and the finding is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier determination order dated 25 March 1964 had finality for all time to come and bound the Sales Tax Department.

Analysis: A determination order is quasi-judicial in character, but that does not make it immutable for all future periods. Each assessment period is distinct, and a prior determination cannot operate as res judicata for a later period. A subsequent change in the statutory or notification regime can justify fresh determination. The earlier order therefore could not be treated as conclusively binding in later proceedings.

Conclusion: The earlier determination order had no finality for all future time and did not bind the department in the later determination proceedings; the finding is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in refusing to give the determination prospective effect beyond the date of the notification.

Analysis: Once the Government notification granting concessional treatment to the commodity came into force on 1 April 1976, the commodity had to be dealt with in accordance with that changed fiscal position. The existence of an earlier determination order could not override the later notification. The authority was therefore justified in declining to extend the earlier determination beyond the date from which the notification operated.

Conclusion: The refusal to give wider prospective effect was justified, and the finding is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: All the referred questions were answered in favour of the Revenue, upholding the taxability of the commodity as classified by the department and rejecting the claim that the earlier determination controlled later periods.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of goods in a taxing statute must be determined by the sense in which the article is understood in common parlance, and a prior quasi-judicial determination does not attain perpetual finality so as to bar fresh determination for a later period or later statutory regime.

---