TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (4) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rries on the business of exporting manganese ore. The present dispute relates to the proper tax leviable in respect of the assessee's purchase turnover of manganese ore for the year 1956-57. It Is common ground that during the relevant assessment year, the parties are governed by the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Under section 3(2-B), item (11), "manganese" is taxable at the rate of six pies in the rupee at the point of purchase by the last dealer who buys it In the State, while manganese ore which is not enumerated in any of the classes of goods mentioned in the Act was taxable only as general goods falling under section 3(1)(b) of the said Act at every sale point at the rate of three pies in the rupee. The assessing officer held that all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said order of the Tribunal contending that "manganese" includes manganese ore and that manganese ore is taxable at six pies in the rupee. The assessee filed T.R.C. No. 13 of 1966 contending that the Tribunal having set aside the assessment, which was on the basis of six pies in the rupee on the purchase turnover of the assessee, it had no longer any jurisdiction to remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment treating manganese ore as general goods at sale point. We will first take up T.R.C. No. 5 of 1966 preferred on behalf of the Government. The short question for decision is whether "manganesementioned in item (ii) of section 3(2-B) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, includes "manganese ore". It may be no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interpretation of words, it is observed as follows: "...This rule was stated by Lord Tenterden in Attorney-General v. Winstanley(1831) 2 D. & Cl. 302, 310., 'the words of an Act of Parliament which are not applied to any particular science or art' are to be construed 'as they are understood in common language'." Referring to Attorney-General v. Bailey(1847) 1 Ex. 281, 292., it was pointed out at page 163 that the word "spirits" being a word of known import is used In the Excise Acts in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood and that in common parlance, the word "spirits" does not include a liquid "sweet spirits of nitre", which is a known article of commerce. In The King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited[1951] C.L.R. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ather what would ordinarily in matters of commerce in Canada be included therein. Botanically, oranges and lemons are berries, but otherwise no one would consider them as such.... Counsel for the plaintiff suggested a test which I think apposite. Would a householder when asked to bring home fruits or vegetables for the evening meal bring home salted peanuts, cashew-nuts or nuts of any sort? The answer is obviously 'no'." Applying the above principle, the Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286. held that "betel leaves" cannot be regarded as "vegetables " and that the words must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew manganese ore may contain manganese. In the instant case, the assessee was purchasing what are popularly known as stocks of manganese ore and has been exporting the same as manganese ore and if he wanted to purchase manganese ore, the seller would not bring him pure manganese. The transactions of purchases and sales by the assessee show that manganese ore was described as a distinct commercial commodity. We are not, therefore, prepared to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there is no difference between a transaction relating to the purchase of manganese ore and one relating to the purchase of pure manganese. Our conclusion is also strengthened by a reference to the Indian Mining and Engineering journal and the....