Commercial parlance test confirms tinted glass sheets fall within the glass entry, and reassessment notice was upheld.

Tinted glass sheets were held commercially distinct from plain glass panes and, applying the common and commercial parlance test, fell within the entry for goods and wares made of glass rather than the exclusion for plain glass panes. The exclusion was construed strictly, so it could not be enlarged to cover tinted glass sheets; the revenue's classification and higher tax levy were sustained. A reassessment notice for earlier years, based on the same classification issue for the same commodity, was also upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tinted glass sheets are classifiable as "all goods and wares made of glass" under Entry No. IV of Notification No. 5784 dated 07.09.1981, or as plain glass panes falling outside that entry; (ii) Whether the reassessment notice issued for the earlier assessment years was liable to be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether tinted glass sheets are classifiable as "all goods and wares made of glass" under Entry No. IV of Notification No. 5784 dated 07.09.1981, or as plain glass panes falling outside that entry.

Analysis: Section 3-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 permits levy at different rates depending on the statutory classification of goods. Entry No. IV of Notification No. 5784 dated 07.09.1981 covers all goods and wares made of glass, while specifically excluding plain glass panes. The Court applied the common and commercial parlance test and found that tinted glass sheets are commercially distinct from plain glass panes. It also accepted the factual findings that tinted glass was manufactured through a separate process, using different raw materials, and had different transparency, density, and solar absorption characteristics. The exclusion for plain glass panes could not be expanded to cover tinted glass sheets, and the burden to show the item fell in the residuary category was not discharged by the assessee.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the revenue was upheld and the levy of tax at the higher rate was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment notice issued for the earlier assessment years was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The reassessment notice under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 proceeded on the same classification issue and related to the same taxable commodity. Since the substantive classification issue was decided against the assessee, the notice for reassessment did not survive as a separate ground of challenge.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed as the Court held that tinted glass sheets are not covered by the exclusion for plain glass panes and are liable to tax under the notified glass entry; the reassessment proceedings were also sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal classification, a commodity must be identified according to its common and commercial understanding, and an exemption or exclusion must be construed strictly so that only the goods clearly falling within the excluded category are taken of the charging entry.

---