1989 Supreme(MP) 384

G. G. Sohani, Ag. C J., A. G. Qureshi and S.D. Jha, JJ.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass
Works Ltd., Indore.
Misc. Civil Case No. 78 of 1984 (I); Decided on 12-10-1989.

Headnote:General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (M.P.) -Sch. II Pt. VI Entry 1 and Pt. II entry 26-glass sheets-will be assessed to entry I, Part II of Schedule II:

       lkekU; fodz; dj vf/kfu;e] 1958 ¼e-iz-½&vuqŒ nks Hkkx Ng izfof"V 1 ,oa Hkkx nks izfof"V 26&dk¡p iRrj & vuqlwph 2 Hkkx nks dh izfof"V 26&dk¡p iRrj&vuqlwph 2 Hkkx nks dh izfof"V 1 esa fu/kkZfjr gksxhA

        The question of law, which has been referred in all these cases by the Board of Revenue to this Court for its opinion is as follows :

       

        "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case glass sheets will be assessed to tax under Entry No. I of Part VI of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and not under Entry No. 26 of Part II of Schedule II.

        Held: A glass sheet, as found by the Board, is glass simplicitor. While considering the question as to whether a glass mirror can be classified as glassware, the Supreme Court observed in Atuul Glass Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (63 S. T. C. 322) that a glass sheet undergoes a complete transformation when it emerges as a glass mirror. What was a piece of glass simplicitor, becomes another commercial produce. Glass sheet is, therefore, a primary product, Glass simplicitor which can be used for producing goods or articles made of glass. It is significant to note that whenever legislature intended to include sheets of a primary product along with goods made of that product in any entry the legislature expressly made reference to sheets of that product as is evident from perusal of certain entries in Part III of the Second Schedule to the Act. Entry No.4 is Sheets, fabrics and goods made of plastic, Entry No. 12 is "Asbestos sheets and products thereof, In Entry 26 of Part II (now numbered as 36), there is, however, no mention of sheets along with goods made of glass. The legislative intent, therefore, is clear that as regards glass, the primary product is not clubbed with goods and articles made of that primary product. The decisions reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Mohanlal Ramkisan Nathan;, Raipur (6 S.T.C. 136), Trivuwandas Gulabchand & Brothers. Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra (16 S. T. C.

       452) and 63 S. T. C. 350 with respect, do not take into account that a glass sheet in common parlance is glass simpliciter and is a primary product used for producing articles or goods made of glass. Glass sheets, therefore, cannot be equated with goods Or articles made of glass. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Polychem Limited (39 S. T. C. 315), the question which arose for consideration before the Bombay High Court was whether polymite sheets used for making toys should be regarded as plastics or goods made from plastics. It was held that polymite sheets must be regarded as plastics and not goods made from plastics. We respectfully agree with that decision. In our opinion, therefore, the decision in 63 S. T. C. 350 (supra) does not lay down correct law.

        For all these reasons. our answer to the question referred by the Board is that on the facts and III the circumstances of the case, glass sheets do not fall under Entry No. 26 of Part II of Schedule II of the Act but they fall under Entry No.1 of Part VI of Schedule II of the ACI. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

       63 STC (SC) followed. 6 STC 136, 16 STC 452 and 63 STC 350 overruled.

       74. STC 26 confirmed. 36 STC 291, 46 STC 17 and 47 STC 359 dissented from. Reference answered.