(1) C.A.NOS. 4606-4607/1998 : Does the refill of a ball point pen fall within Entry 135 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? The Entry reads: "Pens, pencils and fountain pens".

(2) THE authorities and the Tribunal took the view that the refill fell outside the scope of the said Entry, but the High Court, in a tax revision case filed against the order of the Tribunal, took a different view.

(3) ACCORDING to the Tribunal, the refill was a part of the ball point pen. It could not by itself be regarded as a pen, however, pivotal it might be to the ball point pen. It recorded that in common and commercial parlance, a pen and its refill were different commodities with distinct and independent identities.

(4) THE High Court found this view erroneous. It held that the body or cover of the ball point pen was there only to beautify the refill and make it more attractive in appearance. It was the refill which made writing possible and it alone was the writing device.

(5) WE must not immediately that there is no evidence on the record before us as to how a refill is regarded by the public or in commercial parlance, but we have