Undefined "plant" construed in its ordinary sense: bottles and crates for soft drinks qualified for tax deferment benefit.

Bottles and crates used in the manufacture and sale of soft drinks were treated as "plant" because, where the deferment rules did not define the term, it had to be given its ordinary and popular meaning as business apparatus essential to the trade. On that basis, investment in those items qualified for deferment benefit. A factual objection based on circulars and notifications excluding such items from fixed capital investment was also rejected because it was not properly pleaded or supported by a counter-affidavit and material on record in the writ proceedings. The exclusionary defence was therefore not entertainable, and relief was granted to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bottles and crates used in the manufacture and sale of soft drinks constituted "plant" for the purpose of deferment of sales tax. (ii) Whether the respondents' plea based on circulars and notifications excluding such items from fixed capital investment could be entertained in the absence of a counter-affidavit and supporting material.

Issue (i): Whether bottles and crates used in the manufacture and sale of soft drinks constituted "plant" for the purpose of deferment of sales tax.

Analysis: The expression "plant" was not defined in the relevant sales tax/deferment rules and, therefore, had to be understood in its ordinary and popular sense. Applying the accepted meaning of plant as business apparatus or equipment used with some degree of durability, and relying on the treatment of bottles as plant in income-tax decisions, the Court held that bottles and crates were essential tools of the trade of a soft drink manufacturer.

Conclusion: Bottles and crates were plant for the purpose of the deferment scheme, and the petitioners were entitled to deferment benefit in respect of the investment made in them.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents' plea based on circulars and notifications excluding such items from fixed capital investment could be entertained in the absence of a counter-affidavit and supporting material.

Analysis: A legal plea dependent on facts must be pleaded and supported by evidence in a writ proceeding. Since the respondents had not filed a counter-affidavit to the amended challenge and had not placed the relevant material on record in time, the subsequent plea advanced through written notes was not open to consideration.

Conclusion: The respondents' exclusionary plea was rejected as not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant deferment benefit in respect of bottles and crates was set aside and relief was granted to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a term is undefined, it must be construed in its popular sense, and business equipment essential to the trade may qualify as plant; additionally, a factual defence in writ proceedings must be specifically pleaded and supported by material on record.

---