TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (1) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 per cent under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, at the relevant time?" The assessment year is 1969-70. The assessee, M/s. Envoys India (P.) Ltd., manufactures and sells electric welding sets, transformers, rectifiers, road traffic signalling equipment, delay time relays, rectifier elements, electroplating machines, etc. It paid tax on its taxable turnover at the rate of 5 per cent. But the Sales Tax Officer was of the opinion that the items dealt in by the assessee should be treated as electrical goods which fell in entry No. 18 set out in the First Schedule to the Act and as such they were liable to tax at 9 per cent instead of 5 per ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee before the learned District Judge that in order that goods might be termed as electrical goods it was not merely sufficient to say that they could be operated only by means of electricity; it was further necessary that they should be a class of goods which are understood to be electrical goods by the trade. The learned District Judge held that "rectifier stacks and elements, electroplating sets, delayed time relays, liquid level controllers, time recorders and safe trips" (which were the other items mentioned in the assessment order) could well be accepted to be electrical goods even though they were sold not to ordinary consumers but to other industries. This was because those industries treated these goods as electrical goods for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not be charged. But there is no warrant for any assumption that any such classification between luxury goods and other goods was intended and all we have to see is whether the items in question can be described as electrical goods. The question as to what types of goods can be properly described as electrical goods has come up for consideration in a number of cases. It is, however, not necessary to refer to all these decisions. It is sufficient to refer to two of the decisions which, we find, enunciate the principles that are to be applied for such determination of the issue. In Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai v. Ravi Auto Stores[1968] 22 S.T.C. 172., the Madras High Court, relying upon earlier decisions of the same c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be had without electrical energy; and (2) by its very nature it should answer the description of electrical goods. We agree with the twin tests propounded in the above decisions. While, no doubt, primarily the question for consideration would be whether the particular goods can be operated otherwise than by electricity we agree that this test alone cannot be conclusive. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 (S.C.)., and subsequent cases an expression used in such a statute should be understood in the sense which persons conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. The goods in question should also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... electrical goods. In this regard, we think that a certain amount of assistance can be derived from the way in which certain other types of goods have been understood in judicial decisions, where similar expressions have been interpreted in a somewhat limited, rather than a comprehensive manner. Thus, for example, the Allahabad High Court has held that boxes would not be covered by the expression "hardware", vide Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain[1970] 25 S.T.C. 471. Similarly, the expression "glassware" has been held by this Court not to comprehend glass sheets and panes, vide Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi v. Baluja Glass Co.[1980] 46 S.T.C. 17. Again this Court has held in S.T.R. Nos. 34 and 35 of 1973 decide....