Common parlance test for taxing entries: RLNG was not treated as CNG, so the tax treatment was sustained.

RLNG supplied by GAIL was held not to be CNG for purposes of Entry 8(a) of Schedule IV to the Uttar Pradesh VAT Act, 2008, because an undefined commodity in a taxing entry must be construed in its common and commercial sense. The Court rejected a purely technical reading based on pressure during transport, noting that such a reading would unrealistically extend the CNG exclusion to virtually all natural gas. The definition in the PNGRB Act was treated as only persuasive, and the supplier's own prior tax treatment supported the common understanding that CNG refers to gas used in the transport sector. The revision was dismissed and the tax treatment under the entry was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether RLNG supplied by GAIL to the revisionist is Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) so as to fall outside Entry 8(a) of Schedule IV of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis: Entry 8(a) taxes natural gas other than CNG when sold to an industrial unit for manufacture of taxable goods. The product supplied was undisputedly natural gas, but the decisive question was whether compressed natural gas in the statutory entry must be understood in its technical sense or in its popular and commercial sense. The Court held that in fiscal legislation, an undefined commodity description is to be construed as understood in common parlance by persons dealing with or using the product. The technical fact that RLNG is supplied under pressure above atmospheric level was not conclusive, because such pressure is necessary for transport and would make the exclusionary expression cover virtually all natural gas. The Court treated the definition in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 as only of persuasive value and not controlling. It also noted that the revisionist had itself treated the product as taxable natural gas other than CNG for a substantial period, and that CNG in common parlance refers to the gas used in the transport sector.

Conclusion: RLNG supplied to the revisionist is not CNG for purposes of Entry 8(a), and the tax treatment under that entry is sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision fails because the commodity supplied remains taxable natural gas under the relevant entry and does not escape tax as CNG.

Ratio Decidendi: An undefined commodity description in a taxing entry must be interpreted in its common and commercial sense, and a purely technical or scientific understanding cannot be adopted where it would defeat the workable scope of the entry.

---