Common parlance classification controls when paper napkins were treated as toilet articles, not paper, for sales tax purposes.

For sales tax classification, a commodity must answer the ordinary commercial meaning of the entry used in the schedule. Paper napkins, though made of paper, were not treated as "all kinds of paper" because that entry was read in its popular sense and could not be extended to every paper-made article. The broader entry for "toilet articles" was held to cover napkins used for wiping lips and fingers at meals, so the specific functional classification prevailed and the higher rate of tax was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether paper napkins fall under the entry for "all kinds of paper" in Sl. No. 125 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 or under the entry for "toilet articles" in Sl. No. 65, and consequently the applicable rate of tax.

Analysis: The expression "paper" was construed in its popular sense, as understood in common parlance. Paper napkins, being square sheets of paper used at meals for wiping lips and fingers, were held not to answer the description of "paper" within Sl. No. 125. The entry for paper could not be extended merely because the commodity was made of paper. The definition of "toilet articles" in the Second Schedule was wider and covered articles intended for use in the toilet of the human body. As paper napkins are used for wiping the lips and fingers at meals, they were treated as articles of that class and therefore attracted the special rate under section 5(3).

Conclusion: Paper napkins are taxable as "toilet articles" under Sl. No. 65 of the Second Schedule, and not as "paper" under Sl. No. 125.

Final Conclusion: The higher rate of tax upheld by the Tribunal was sustained and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under a taxing entry, the commodity must satisfy the ordinary commercial meaning of the description used in the entry; an article made of paper is not necessarily "paper" if its common parlance identity is different, and a specific entry covering its functional use prevails over a general paper entry.

---