JUDGMENT
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.
1. These two references involve identical questions and, therefore, they were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common order.
2. This Court by its order dated 2nd February, 1980, directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (“the Board” herein), to state the case and make a consolidated reference in both the cases on the following question :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that ‘neel’ (ultramarine blue) is not included in the term ‘pigment’ and is as such taxable at the general rate of 7 per cent ?
3. The dealer-assessee deals in “neel” (ultramarine blue) and chemicals. It is a firm and is registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short “the Act” herein). In respect of the periods, under consideration, the assessing authority assessed the sale of “neel” (ultramarine blue) by the assessee to sales tax at the rate of 12 per cent by holding that it is a kind of pigment under item No. 18 of Notification No. F. 5(22)FD/CT/70-7 dated 9th March, 1970. The material part of the notification is as under:
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act No. 29 of 1954), the State Government hereby notifies that with immediate effect the rate of the tax payable by a dealer in respect of the goods specified in column 2 of the list annexed hereto shall be as shown against them in column 3 of the said list.
_________________________________________________________
S.No. Description of goods Rate of tax
_________________________________________________________
18. Dyes, paints and varnishes, dry colours, pigments,
lacquers, glue, polish (other than boot polish),
paintbrush, sand-paper, turpentine oil, enamels
and white
oil 12 per cent.
4. Aggrieved, the dealer-assessee filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, in respect of the two periods, on the ground that “neel” (ultramarine blue) was not a pigment and as such the sale was not taxable at the rate of 12 per cent but was taxable at the rate of 7 per cent under the residuary item. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), by his order dated 6th September, 1976, dismissed both the appeals and concurred with the view taken by the assessing authority. Being dissatisfied with the appellate order, the dealer-assessee filed two revisions before the Board against the common order dated 6th September, 1976. They were allowed by a common order dated 28th April, 1978. It was held therein that the neel (ultramarine blue) not being included in the term “pigment” was taxable only at the general rate of 7 per cent instead of the higher rate of 12 per cent. The assessing authority filed an application under Section 15(1) of the Act, for stating the case and refer the question of law arising out of the order of the Board, to this Court for its opinion. The application for making reference for the period 8th November, 1972, to 26th October, 1973, was dismissed on 14th February, 1979. The reason given was that the matter was academic and stood concluded by an earlier decision of the Board. In regard to the period 27th October, 1973, to 13th November, 1974, the Board declined to refer the question of law on the ground that the application in another case has been rejected. Thereafter, reference applications were filed under Section 15(2)(b) of the Act to this Court and this Court directed the Board to refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this Court.
5. These references were pending on 1st May, 1985, when the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) (for short “the Amendment Act”) came into force. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 13(11) of the Amendment Act, these references are deemed to be applications for revision under Section 15 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act and are, therefore, disposed of as such.
6. We have heard Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the A.C.T.O. (assessing authority) and Mr. S.L. Choudhary and Mr. R. Balia, for the dealer-assessee and carefully considered the order dated 28th April, 1978, of the Division Bench of the Board.
7. At the very outset, it may be stated that the Division Bench of the Board posed a question whether the commodity known as “neel” (ultramarine blue) in common parlance is covered by the expression “pigment” for taxation purposes? Without making a probe in the matter, it relied on an earlier decision of the Board reported in Jamna Nath v. Nemi Nath 1978 RRD 72, in which item No. 18 of the aforesaid notification dated 9th March, 1970, came up for consideration. It was opined by the Division Bench in that case that the ultramarine blue cannot be considered as pigment.
8. The question of law which emerges from the order dated 28th April, 1978 of the Division Bench of the Board is whether “neel” (ultramarine blue) in which the dealer-assessee has done business, in respect of the aforesaid two periods, is covered by the expression “pigment” used in item No. 18 of the aforesaid notification for taxation purposes.
9. It is well-settled by catena of cases of the apex court of the country that in interpreting the meaning of the words in taxing statutes we should not be guided by their technical and scientific meaning alone but the terms should be understood in the manner in which merchants dealing with them and consumers using them generally understand. In other words they should be understood in the sense in which they are popularly understood by those who deal in them and who purchase and use them. Reference may be made to Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. S.N. Brothers [1973] 31 STC 302 (SC). The word ”pigment” in item No. 18 has been used along with dyes, paints and varnishes, dry colours, etc. The dictionary meaning of the word “pigment” is “any substance used for colouring: that which gives colour to animal and vegetable tissues”. “Pigment brown” ; “pigment caramine” ; “pigment chrome yellow” ; “pigment fast orange”; “pigment fast red” ; “pigment fast scarlet” ; “pigment fast yellow”; “pigment purple”; “pigment red”; “pigment scarlet”; “pigment violet” are used to convey colouring, by particular colour. “Neel” (ultramarine blue) is not a colour. In common parlance, “neel” (ultramarine blue) is understood as a substance, which is used to whiten clothes. It is not understood as colour. It is a whitening agent for laundry purposes, used by washermen or by householders. Ultramarine blue is not a colour as it is used to whiten clothes.
10. The 1977 Notification No. F. 4(64)FD/Gr. IV/77-56 dated 6th September, 1977 as corrected by corrigendum dated 24th September, 1977 specifies the rate of tax payable by a dealer in respect of the goods as mentioned in column No. 2 of the list annexed thereto, shown against them in column No. 3 of that list. Item No. 24 of the aforesaid notification is material for the present purpose, which is as under :
24. Dyes, paints, dry colour, pigment, ndigo, ultramarine blue, enamels, cement based water colours, dry distempers, oil-based distempers, emulsion paints including acrylic and plastic emulsion paints, lacquers including cellulose lacquers, varnishes, glue, polish (other than boot polish), paint-brush, sand-paper, abrasive paper, turpentine oil, bale oil, white oil, double boiled linseed oil, thinners and paint removers of all kinds.
11. It is clear that whatever may have been the controversy as to whether “neel” (ultramarine blue) is included in the expression “pigment” or not, was set at rest by the aforesaid notification and the same has been mentioned as taxable at the rate of 12 per cent. Before the aforesaid notification, by which the ultramarine blue has been specifically mentioned, it cannot be considered as “pigment” under item No. 18 of the notification dated 9th March, 1970.
12. It appears from the extracted portion of Ganesh Manufacturing Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1972) 6 TR 214, which has been reproduced in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.’s case (sic) that until the word “pigment” was not added, the question was beyond controversy and even after the addition of the word “pigment”, having regard to the general rules of interpretation, enunciated by the various courts, it cannot be said that ultramarine blue is a “pigment”. This is correct. In this view of the matter, we hold that the expression “pigment” as used in item No. 18 of the notification dated 9th March, 1970, does not include “neel” (ultramarine blue). The view taken by the Division Bench of the Board in its order dated 28th April, 1978, is correct.
13. Sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent under the residuary item was leviable in respect of the sale of “neel” (ultramarine blue), which was sold by the dealer-assessee. The order dated 28th April, 1978 does not call for any interference, as the rate of sales tax payable on the sale of neel (ultramarine blue) regarding the aforesaid two periods under consideration was rightly decided. The question of law stated above is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the dealer-assessee.
14. These references, which are deemed to be applications for revision under Section 16 of the Act, as substituted by the Amendment Act, are accordingly disposed of as indicated above.
15. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.