AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veeraswami, C.J.—The question in this tax case is whether tape, which is produced by cotton threads pasted together parallel wise is textile
within the meaning of entry 4 of the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. If it is, the assessee, who is the respondent, is
entitled to exemption from tax on the related turnover, u/s 8 of the Act. Differing from the departmental view, the Madras Sales Tax Appellate
Tribunal held in his favour.
Entry 4 aforesaid is : All varieties of textiles (other than durries, carpets, druggets and pure silk cloth) made wholly or partly of cotton, staple
fibre, rayon, artificial silk and wool, including handkerchiefs, towels, napkins, dusters, cotton velvets and velveteen, tapes, niwars and laces and
hosiery cloth in lengths. Specific mention having been made of tape in the entry, the revenue contends that the term would apply only to tape made
of threads as a result of weaving. The tape now in question, which is shown to us, is used generally in tying up bundles or papers, and is made of
threads which lengthwise are pasted together, without employing the process of interlocking or interlacing the threads, as in making cotton cloth
and the like. The term ""textile"" has come up for judicial interpretation in State of Madras v. T.T. Gopalier and Anr. [1968] 21 S.T.C. 451 and The
Government of Madras v. Madurai Braided Cord and Tape Producers Co-operative Industrial Society [1968] 22 S.T.C. 470. Following the
dictionary meaning of the word, it has been held that ""textile"" in its broad sense is what is woven, and it means woven suitable for weaving textile
fabrics. ""Fabric"" itself is, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, ""thing put together; woven material; texture, tissue"". There is no doubt,
therefore, that the ingredient of textile is necessarily weaving, and what is not woven can hardly be described as textile. The various items
mentioned in the entry themselves point to this meaning. Tapes made as a result of weaving would clearly be within the entry. But, would it be so if
the normal pattern of producing textile by using the warp and woof pattern of thread is not applied ? In our view, that will not be conclusive. We
are inclined to think that weaving is not necessarily limited to that type of weaving. In modern advancement of textile technology, it. is now
possible, without using the warp and the woof pattern to produce tape, by holding the threads together lengthwise by using gum. To a casual look,
the product resembles a tape which has been woven in the normal sense on the loom. But it is not the appearance alone, but what is necessary for
weaving is that threads are bound together in order to produce a pattern of fabric or tape.
In State of Madras v. T.T. Gopalier and Anr., this Court expressed the view that the term ""weaving"" will include also weaving of threads into
interlocking patterns. It went on to observe that it cannot necessarily be restricted to weaving on a loom, using the warp and woof pattern of
thread, and that any form of using threads so as to evolve a pattern and make them into a product of utility will fall within the definition of
weaving"". We share this view.
The fax case is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100.