Common parlance test governed tax classification of Rooh Afza, and the residuary entry applied when no specific entry covered it.

Classification of "Sharbat Rooh Afza" turned on whether it fell within the specific VAT entry for fruit drink or processed fruit, or within the residuary schedule. The court applied the composition, label, licence particulars and market understanding, and found the product to be a non-fruit syrup or sharbat with only limited fruit juice content, not a fruit drink, fruit juice or processed fruit. In the absence of a statutory definition, the common parlance test was correctly used, and trade understanding treated the product as "Sharbat." Because no specific entry covered it, the residuary entry in Schedule V was properly invoked and the revisional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product "Sharbat Rooh Afza" was classifiable under Entry 103 of Part A of Schedule II of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act as fruit drink or processed fruit, or under the residuary entry in Schedule V; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the common parlance test and holding the product to be known as "Sharbat"; (iii) whether the residuary entry could be invoked despite the existence of a specific entry.

Issue (i): Whether the product "Sharbat Rooh Afza" was classifiable under Entry 103 of Part A of Schedule II of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act as fruit drink or processed fruit, or under the residuary entry in Schedule V.

Analysis: The product was examined on the basis of its composition, licence particulars, label description, market understanding, and the materials relied on by the assessing and appellate authorities. The product was found to be a non-fruit syrup or sharbat containing only limited fruit juice content, and not a fruit drink, fruit juice, or processed fruit. The materials on record supported the conclusion that it did not answer the description of the specific entry relied upon by the revisionists.

Conclusion: The product was not covered by Entry 103 and was correctly treated as an unclassified commodity falling under Schedule V.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the common parlance test and holding the product to be known as "Sharbat".

Analysis: In the absence of any statutory definition for the relevant expressions, the commercial or popular meaning of the commodity governed classification. The evidence showed that in trade and consumer understanding the product was sought and supplied as "Sharbat Rooh Afza" and not as fruit drink or fruit juice. The Tribunal therefore applied the accepted test of classification and recorded concurrent factual findings on that basis.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in applying the common parlance test and in holding that the product is known as "Sharbat".

Issue (iii): Whether the residuary entry could be invoked despite the existence of a specific entry.

Analysis: A residuary entry can be applied only where no specific entry covers the commodity. Since the product was not found to fall within Entry 103 or any other specific schedule entry, the authorities were entitled to place it in the residuary schedule. The concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse and did not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The residuary entry was rightly applied.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were devoid of merit, and the classification of "Sharbat Rooh Afza" as an unclassified commodity taxable under Schedule V was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute does not define the commodity, classification must be determined by its common or commercial parlance meaning, and a residuary entry applies only when no specific entry covers the product.

---