The expression "paper of all kinds" appearing in entry 24(2) of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 is wide enough to include filter paper.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion :

"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case and on a true and proper interpretation of entry 24(2) of Schedule C, was the Tribunal correct in law in holding that 'filter paper' is covered by that entry but is not covered by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E ?"

2. The assessee is a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Act"). It deals in scientific equipment and filter paper. By an application dated March 23, 1977, the assessee applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52(1)(e) of the Act for determination of the rate of tax payable under the Act on sales of filter paper. According to the assessee, filter paper sold by it was paper falling under entry 24(2) of Schedule "C" to the Act which covered paper of all kinds, including sand paper, straw boards, card board and duplex and triplex boards. The Commissioner did not agree with the assessee and, by his order dated September 5, 1979, held that filter paper did not fall under entry 24(2) of Schedule C to the Act. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Commissioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 8, which, according to him, applied to the present case. The assessee filed appeal against the above order of the Commissioner to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal, on consideration of entry 24(2) of Schedule C to the Act and the relevant literature and other material on record, came to a finding that filter paper was "paper" falling under entry 24(2) of Schedule C to the Act. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1978] 42 STC 433. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner has come to this Court by way of this reference under section 61(1) of the Act.

3. Mr. N. T. Saraf, learned counsel for the Commissioner, submits that filter paper is not paper as understood in common parlance and hence it does not fall under item (2) of entry 24 of Schedule C to the Act. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kores (India) Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 8.

4. Mr. R. V. Patel, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kores (India) Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 8, is not relevant for interpreting entry 24 of Schedule C to the Act in view of the fact that the language of the relevant item in the notification which came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in that case was totally different from the language of the entry 24 of Schedule C. According to him, the language of entry 24(2) is clear enough to cover all types of paper irrespective of the use to which they can be put. The submission of the counsel is that paper referred to in item (2) of entry 24 is not restricted to paper used for writing or printing which is evident from the fact that even sand paper, straw board, card board, duplex and triplex boards have specifically been included in item (2) of entry 24. Counsel further submits that the expression used in item (2) of entry 24, viz., "paper of all other kinds" is wide enough to include all kinds of paper except those specifically referred to in item (1) of the said entry. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in India Carbon Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1971] 28 STC 603 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers [1967] 19 STC 24 (SC), Viny Pap Sales Depot v. State of Tamil Nadu [1977] 40 STC 317 (Mad.) and Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of H