Fiscal classification of air guns and air pistols under arms or toys required reconsideration by a Larger Bench.

Air guns and air pistols were considered for fiscal classification under the entry for arms and ammunition versus toys, including electronic toys. In the absence of a statutory definition, the taxing entry had to be construed in its ordinary and common parlance sense. The Court noted conflicting precedents: one view treated air guns as arms because they can cause injury, while another held that an implement is not an arm merely because it can cause injury. The Court concluded that the correctness of the earlier view required reconsideration and referred the questions to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether air guns and air pistols fall under the taxing entry for arms and ammunition or under the entry for toys including electronic toys; and whether the earlier view treating air guns as arms and ammunition lays down the correct law.

Analysis: In the absence of a statutory definition, the expression used in the taxing entry was required to be understood in its ordinary and common parlance sense. The Court noted the rival views, including earlier precedent taking the view that air guns are capable of causing injury and therefore fall within arms and ammunition, as well as contrary High Court decisions emphasising that every implement capable of causing injury cannot, for that reason alone, be treated as an arm in fiscal classification. On that basis, the Court found that the issue required reconsideration by a larger Bench.

Outcome: The questions were referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.

---