BERI, J.—This is a reference under sec. 15 (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. XXIX of 1954 hereinafter called the Act) by the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Udaipur, made at the instance of the firm of Messrs. Motilal & Co., Jodhpur, through its partner Inder Singh, the assessee.

2. For the assessment year 1957-58 the assessee, who carries on business in Jodhpur City, claimed exemption of Sales-Tax on Durries. The Sales-Tax Officer disallowed this claim holding that Durries were not included in handloom cloth. The assessee preferred a revision application before the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Rajasthan. The Officer also rejected the assessees claim on the ground that the term "cloth" is not a word of art and Durries are not included in the Notification No.F.21 (7) SR/55 dated 14.4.55. On an application by the assessee that the Durries woven on handloom stood covered by the exemption certificate granted under the Notification relating to handloom cloth, the Commissioner has submitted the following question for answer;—

"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the turnover of Durries has been rightly included in the taxable turnover?"

3. We have heard Shri Hasti Mal, learned counsel for the assessee, and Shri Kan Singh Government Advocate, for the State.

4. Before we proceed to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the parties we think it useful to refer to the relevant provisions of law around which the present controversy revolves. Under sec. 3 subject to the provisions of the Act, every dealer whose turnover in the previous year in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceeds Rs. 12,000/- shall be liable tax. Under sec.4 (1) no tax shall be payable under the Act on the sale of any of the exempted goods if the conditions specified in column 3 of the Schedule are satisfied. Under sec. 4 (2) where the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, exempt from tax the sale of any goods or class of goods on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be specified in the notification.

5. Pursuant to the provisions of sec. 4 (2) the State Government issued a Notification No. F. 21 (7) SR/55 dated 14.4.55, the relevant entry whereof reads as under:—

"Handloom cloth, including pagri made of handloom cloth (with or without challa) safa woven on handloom cloth interwoven with gold thread, of whatever description."

The learned counsel for the assessee argued that it is not disputed that the Durries regarding which the assessee claims exemp:ion are woven exactly in the same manner as any other handloom cloth. The technique employed in making Durry or other handloom cloth being identical, Durry is a handloom cloth intended for covering the floor, stairs etc., and, therefore, stands exempted. The learned counsel urged that the Commissioner adopted the dictionary meaning of the word cloth but stopped short by not giving full effect to the word covering. The learned counsel further argued that even assuming that the expression handloom cloth was capable of more than one meaning in a fiscal statute that interpretation should be given which is favourable to the subject, He relied on State of Bombay Vs. R.S. Phadtare (1) wherein it was held that sugarcane is a fresh vegetable which is exempted from the provisions of the Act. The learned Judges applied the doctrine that if two constructions are possible on a taxing statute; the court must consider the one which gives relief to the subject. The learned counsel also cited Empress Mills Vs. Municipal Committee Wardha(2) wherein it was held that if in construing a taxing statute, there are two interpretations possible, then effect is to be given to the one that favours the citizen and not the one that imposes a burden on him.

6. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, urged that it was not the construction of a taxing sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document