Common parlance classification of quarry materials placed ballast, boulder and chips in the mineral entry, with loading charges excluded.

Ballast, boulder and chips obtained from quarry operations were construed in their common and commercial sense and treated as minerals because the sales tax statute did not define the term otherwise. They therefore fell within the mineral entry taxable at 4%, rather than the residuary rate of 12%, and separately identifiable loading charges were excluded from taxable turnover as labour charges. The rate issue was also held to be a pure question of law arising from the statutory entry, so it could be raised for the first time in second appeal and was not barred by procedural objection or the absence of a cross-objection. The Tribunal's view was upheld and the revisions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ballast, boulder and chips are exigible to tax at the rate of 4% or 12% of the taxable list. (ii) Whether such plea regarding rate of tax could be raised for the first time in second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether ballast, boulder and chips are exigible to tax at the rate of 4% or 12% of the taxable list.

Analysis: The disputed goods were found to have been obtained from quarry operations and processed from spalls. The taxing entry covered ores and minerals at 4%, while all other goods attracted 12%. In the absence of a specific definition in the sales tax law, the expression was construed in common parlance. On that approach, and applying the settled principle that words in taxing statutes are understood in their popular and commercial sense unless the statute indicates otherwise, ballast, boulder and chips were treated as minerals. The loading charges for the railway contract were separately identifiable labour charges and were not part of the sale turnover.

Conclusion: Ballast, boulder and chips are minerals exigible to tax at 4% and the loading charges are deductible from the taxable turnover.

Issue (ii): Whether such plea regarding rate of tax could be raised for the first time in second appeal.

Analysis: The rate applicable to the goods was a pure question of law arising from the statutory entry and could be raised at any stage. The second appellate forum was competent to entertain the plea, and the absence of a cross-objection by the Revenue did not bar consideration of the issue.

Conclusion: The plea was maintainable before the Tribunal and was not barred by limitation or procedural objection.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view on the taxability of the goods at 4% and on exclusion of loading charges was upheld, and the revisions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing statutes, goods not specifically defined must be classified according to their common parlance meaning, and where the goods are obtained from quarry operations as minerals, they fall within the mineral entry rather than the residuary entry.

---