Commercial parlance controls tax classification of dyes, and concurrent findings supported by evidence are not perverse.

In classification disputes under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, goods must be classified according to their commercial parlance meaning and the context of the schedule entry. On the assessment records and invoices, the assessee's goods were treated by chemical suppliers as synthetic organic dyes, including basic dyes and acid dyes, and Entry 16 specifically covered dyes, while Entry 18(ii) and (iii) covered paints, colours and pigments. The placement of the entries supported treating dyes as a separate class. As the appellate authority and Tribunal's findings were supported by relevant material, they were not shown to be perverse and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods sold by the assessee were correctly classified as dyes taxable at 8% under Entry 16 of Part C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or as colours and pigments taxable at 16% under Entry 18(ii) and (iii) of Part E of the First Schedule; and whether the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and Tribunal suffered from perversity warranting interference.

Analysis: Classification of goods in a taxing entry must be determined by the meaning understood in commercial parlance and by the class of goods with which the entry is associated. The goods purchased and sold by the assessee were found, on the assessment records and invoices, to be dealt with by chemical suppliers and to answer the description of synthetic organic dyes, including basic dyes and acid dyes. Entry 16 dealt specifically with dyes, while Entry 18(ii) and (iii) dealt with paints, colours and pigments. The placement of the entries supported the view that dyes formed a separate class from colours and pigments. The record also did not disclose any material showing that the finding of the appellate authority or the Tribunal was based on no evidence or on irrelevant material.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held to fall under Entry 16 as dyes taxable at 8%, and the Tribunal's view was not perverse.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the concurrent orders classifying the goods as dyes, and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In classification disputes under a taxing schedule, the goods must be construed in commercial parlance and by the context of the entry, and a concurrent finding supported by relevant material cannot be interfered with as perverse merely because another view is possible.

---