Common parlance tax classification governs Gambier, which was treated as an unclassified item rather than catechu.

In tax classification under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, Gambier was held to be distinct from Kattha/Catechu on common parlance and commercial identity, so it could not be treated as the specified catechu entry merely because it may serve as a raw material or substitute. It was therefore liable to be treated as an unclassified item. The Tribunal also acted on relevant material and on the accepted test that classification depends on popular and commercial meaning, not scientific possibility or alternate use, so no infirmity was shown in its reasoning. The revisions accordingly failed and the Revenue's view was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Gambier is catechu liable to tax at 4% or an unclassified item liable to tax at 12.5% and 13.5%; (ii) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal was based on irrelevant material.

Issue (i): Whether Gambier is catechu liable to tax at 4% or an unclassified item liable to tax at 12.5% and 13.5%.

Analysis: The dispute turned on classification of the commodity under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The entry for Kattha/Catechu had to be construed according to common parlance because the Act did not define the term. On the admitted facts and the material on record, Gambier and Kattha/Catechu were different commodities in trade and consumer understanding. Their nature, use, and market identity were distinct. Mere capability of Gambier to be used as an alternative raw material or to yield Catechu after processing did not make it Catechu for fiscal classification.

Conclusion: Gambier is not catechu and is liable to be treated as an unclassified item. The finding is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal was based on irrelevant material.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on earlier reasoning and the accepted test of classification in taxing statutes, namely that goods must be identified by their popular and commercial meaning rather than scientific possibility or alternate use. The materials considered by the Tribunal supported the conclusion that Gambier and Kattha/Catechu were distinct commodities. No infirmity was shown in the Tribunal's reliance on those materials.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was not based on irrelevant material. The finding is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed as the commodity was correctly treated as unclassified and the Tribunal's order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing statutes, goods must be classified according to their common and commercial parlance identity, and a product cannot be placed in a specific entry merely because it can be used as a raw material for, or substitute of, another commodity.

---