State of Andhra Pradesh vs Pulp "N" Pack (Pvt) Ltd.

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—This is a State''s revision u/s 22(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is filed against the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 538 of 1982 taking the view that "paper pulp trays" used for carrying eggs, known as egg trays, should be classified under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act. The learned Government Pleader submits that egg trays fall under "general goods" and are taxable u/s 5(1) of the Act. The question whether the paper pulp egg trays fall under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act, is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Chennupati Traders, Vijayawada (1989) 9 APSTJ 17. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Claridge and Company Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, , the judgment in State of A.P. v. Chennupati Traders, Vijayawada (1989) 9 APSTJ 17 is not a good law.

The respondent-assessee is a dealer in egg trays. The question arises out of the order of assessment relating to the assessment year 1980-81. The assessing authority assessed the egg trays to tax as an item under entry 143 of the First Schedule to the Act. On appeal, that order was upheld by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. On further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that entry 143 has no application and the paper pulp egg trays fall under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act. It is this order which is assailed in this tax revision case.

Having regard to the contention of the learned Government Pleader, it would be useful to read entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act which is as under :

"Entry 19 : Containers other than gunnies and bottles"

The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Claridge and Company Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, in support of his contention. The question before the Supreme Court in that case, was whether the egg trays fall within the meaning of the expression "container" in entry 4818.19 of the Central Excise Act. Having considered the definition of the expression "container" in various dictionaries, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the definition would show that the expression "container" was used in three different senses - in broad sense to mean a receptacle which contains; in a narrower sense to mean a receptacle in which articles are covered or closed and transported; and in a more limited sense to mean enclosures used in shipping or railways for transport of goods. It was further observed that in a broad sense, "container" would include tray because it is a receptacle which contains articles and therefore an egg tray would be a container and clarified that an egg tray would not be a container in a narrow sense as the articles placed in the tray are not covered or enclosed and cannot be transported as such. The Supreme Court laid down that the test to find out whether the word in a relevant entry of a statute is used in a narrower sense or a broad sense, is to look into the context in which the word has been used in the entries. The well accepted principle of statutory construction is that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate senses and that is based on the principle that words take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. Keeping in view the above principle, it would be useful to read here entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act. From a perusal of the entry 19, it appears to us that the word "container" is used here in a more broader sense rather than in a restricted sense as in the Central Excise Act.

In this view of the matter, we find no reason to differ from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Chennupati Traders, Vijayawada (1989) 9 APSTJ 17. In the result we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision case. No costs.

Petition dismissed.