Common parlance test governs fiscal classification of PET resin and PVC granules; chemical entry rejected.

Where a fiscal entry is undefined, goods must be classified according to common parlance, trade understanding, and user test, not scientific, dictionary, internet, or technical material. Applying that approach, PET resin and PVC granules were held not to fall within "chemicals" under Entry 51 of the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008, because they were not specifically named and the authorities failed to discharge the burden of supporting that classification. The assessment, appellate, and revisional orders were quashed, and the tax collected on the disputed goods was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether PET resin and PVC granules are classifiable as "chemicals" under Entry 51 of the Schedule to the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008. (ii) Whether the authorities were justified in applying scientific, dictionary, internet, or technical tests instead of the common parlance and user test for classification.

Issue (i): Whether PET resin and PVC granules are classifiable as "chemicals" under Entry 51 of the Schedule to the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis: The Schedule did not define "chemicals", so the expression had to be understood in its popular, trade, or commercial sense. The entries in the Schedule, read as a whole, indicated that certain chemical-like items were separately specified, and PET resin and PVC granules were not specifically named under Entry 51 during the relevant period. The Court also noticed that the goods were treated separately in analogous classification material and that the burden to justify classification as "chemicals" was not discharged by the authorities.

Conclusion: PET resin and PVC granules are not "chemicals" under Entry 51 of the Schedule to the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities were justified in applying scientific, dictionary, internet, or technical tests instead of the common parlance and user test for classification.

Analysis: In fiscal classification, where no statutory definition is provided, the controlling approach is common parlance, trade parlance, and user test. The authorities' reliance on scientific, dictionary, and internet material was held unsafe and inappropriate for deciding the taxability of the goods. Since the petitioners established that the goods were understood differently in trade and common use, the interpretive burden favored the assessees.

Conclusion: The common parlance and user test applied in favour of the petitioners, and the contrary classification adopted by the authorities was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessment, appellate, and revisional orders were quashed, and the tax collected on the disputed goods was directed to be refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal entry is undefined, the commodity must be classified according to common parlance and trade understanding, and if two views are reasonably possible, the interpretation favorable to the assessee must prevail.

---