TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 1(3) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act required a specific notification for footwear or garments before the Act could apply; (ii) whether footwear sold in retail packaging constituted a "commodity in packaged form" under Section 2(b) of the Act and a "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the Rules; and (iii) whether Section 39 and Rule 6 applied so as to require the prescribed declarations on the package.
Issue (i): Whether Section 1(3) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act required a specific notification for footwear or garments before the Act could apply.
Analysis: Section 1(3) was treated as an enabling provision authorising the Central Government to bring the Act into force by notification for different provisions, areas, classes of goods, undertakings, weights and measures, or users. The provision was read as permitting phased or partial enforcement, but not as prohibiting a general notification. The judgment accepted the view that once the Act is brought into force generally, a further commodity-specific notification is not necessary for its application to covered goods.
Conclusion: The contention that a special notification for footwear or garments was mandatory was rejected, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether footwear sold in retail packaging constituted a "commodity in packaged form" under Section 2(b) of the Act and a "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the Rules.
Analysis: Section 2(b) was construed broadly to cover any commodity packed in any form, whether or not the packing was essential to sale. Rule 2(l) was read in harmony with the Act and, in light of the later Supreme Court approach, a commodity packed before the purchaser is present and having a predetermined value remained a pre-packed commodity even if the package was opened for examination or testing at retail. The fact that only one unit was packed did not take the goods outside the definition.
Conclusion: The packaged footwear was held to be covered by the statutory definitions, against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether Section 39 and Rule 6 applied so as to require the prescribed declarations on the package.
Analysis: Section 39 was interpreted as applying to commodities in packaged form sold or offered for sale, and the obligation to declare identity, quantity, unit sale price, sale price, and related particulars was treated as attaching to the package itself. Once the goods fell within the statutory definitions, the prescribed labelling requirements followed. The consumer-protective object of the enactment supported a construction that would make the provisions workable and effective.
Conclusion: Section 39 and Rule 6 were held applicable, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the Act and the Rules were held applicable to the petitioner's packaged footwear, and the impugned seizure and label-related action were not interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the standards and packaged commodities regime is brought into force by a general notification, commodities covered by the statutory definitions and sold in packaged retail form must comply with the prescribed declarations, and no commodity-specific notification is required unless the statute expressly so provides.
TaxTMI 
