TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B to the Act un- der which common salt is an exempted item "except when sold in sealed containers". According to the petitioner, the plastic bag is merely a cheap mode of packing and could not be described as a sealed container and, therefore, the common salt sold by it was an exempted item. It has been pointed out that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, had issued instructions on December 1, 1986, to the following effect: "According to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, Sche- dule B, item No. 5, if the salt is sold in plastic bags (laphafas) or in some other sealed container and then the tax should be levied on it. That the legal remembrancer has been consulted in this behalf and he has confirmed the opinion." 2.. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s action, he had closed the doors of the petitioner to contend in the assessment proceedings that plastic bags in which the common salt was being sold could not be treated as a sealed container as the authorities were bound by the instructions of the Commissioner. He relied on the decision of this Court in Sadhu Singh Gurdeep Singh, Amritsar v. State of Punjab (2000) 16 P&H (Taxes) 429 (P&H), in which it had been held that circulars issued by the State Government which tend to control the discretion of the assessing and other adjudicating authorities in the matter of levy of taxes are ultra vires of the powers of the State as it may become impossible for the authorities, who are subordinate to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, to indepe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. G.G. Industries, Agra [1968] 21 STC 63, wherein the term "sealed container" was held to mean a container which is "so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening". This interpretation was further applied by the apex Court in Martand Dairy and Farm v. Union of India [1975] 35 STC 629. It was, therefore, contended that access to salt packed in the plastic bags, which were sealed, could only be had after breaking the seal. Such plastic bags would, therefore, fall within the meaning of the term "sealed container". 6.. I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the authorities cited before me. It is true that the administrative authorities are not expec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the High Court, it decided the matter on those findings. The following observations of the court may, in this behalf, be specifically referred to: "Had the matter rested with the question alone we would have accepted the contention of Mr. Cooper. We, however, find, as we have already set out earlier, that the Tribunal has given a categorical finding which shows that a sample container in which the cashew- nuts were packed was produced before the Tribunal and the same could be opened and closed again. The other statements of the Tribunal, to which we have referred earlier, also show that the Tribunal has rejected the contention that these containers were such as they would have to be broken or torn open before a person could get ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....must be upheld." 7.. I may also notice the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the term "sealed container" must be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. As already observed earlier, today hundreds of consumer items are sold in plastic bags which are sealed. It cannot be said that the same are not understood as containers in common parlance. The authorities of the apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguish- able. 8.. In the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC), the proposition before the Supreme Court was whether the word "vegetables" would include "betel leaves" or not. It was held that being a word of every day use, it must be construed in its popul....