Common parlance test for sales tax entries excludes glass bottles from "glassware" until express amendment.

Glass bottles were not covered by Entry 102 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act before the 1987 amendment because "glassware" is construed in common parlance as tableware and similar articles, not bottles. The court noted that the earlier deletion of the specific bottle entry and the later express insertion of "glass bottles, glass marbles and glass beads" showed that bottles were not included in the unamended or 1983 form of the entry. As a result, glass bottles could not be treated as single-point goods under Entry 102 for the relevant assessment years, and the Tribunal's view treating them as multi-point commodities remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether glass bottles fell within Entry 102 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as glassware and were therefore taxable at the single-point rate for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: The earlier deletion of the specific entry for glass bottles and the later introduction of Entry 102 for "glass and glassware" showed that glass bottles were not expressly included when the entry was framed in 1974 or substituted in 1983. Applying the common parlance test, the expression "glassware" was held to denote articles ordinarily understood in trade as tableware and similar glass articles, not glass bottles. The later 1987 amendment specifically inserting "glass bottles, glass marbles and glass beads" into the entry reinforced the conclusion that glass bottles were not covered by the unamended or 1983 form of Entry 102.

Conclusion: Glass bottles did not fall under Entry 102 prior to the 1987 amendment and could not be taxed as single-point goods under that entry for the assessment years in question.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed and the Tribunal's view treating glass bottles as multi-point commodities for the relevant years was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express inclusion, a sales-tax entry must be construed according to common parlance, and an article not ordinarily understood as falling within "glassware" cannot be brought within that entry merely because it is made of glass.

---