1973 PLP 453 (PTD)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the term "pottery" includes all articles made of clay and the notification, therefore, covers the earthenware pipes made by the petitioner Company because they are made of clay. It was contended that both the words, "pottery" and "crockery" were used in the item. The word "Crockery" encompasses a much wide field than "pottery" for it would cover vessels made of material other than ordinary clay. Ordinarily, therefore, all earthenware vessels would be covered by this expression and the use of the word "pottery" would be redundant unless something which was not covered by "crockery" but falls within the definition of "pottery" was sought to be included. Reference was made to the Encyclopaedia 13ritannlca, Vol. 18, 1966 Edn., page

337. The article which begins at this page deals with "Pottery" and "Porcelain". The following is in brief the meaning of the word "pottery" given under this head :‑ "Pottery" and "porcelain" are technical terms referring to the composition and method of manufacture of the material in question. Both terms require some explanation. Clay, is the basic material. The terms describing the end products of firing are sometimes used very loosely. In this article, all objects that are made from clay and hardened by fire are termed ceramics', a word derived from the Greek keramos ("potter's earth"). "Pottery" is used synonymously with "earthenware" to denote all ceramics substance which are not vitrified." While dealing with the Shaping of clay it is stated at p. 383:‑ " Shaping the Clay.‑Earthenware bodies are usually extremely plastic and can be shaped by many methods. Porcelain and stoneware bodies are usually less plastic, and sometimes present difficulties which have to be overcome in various ways. The methods in use before the advent of mass production have been already discussed above. Both throwing on the wheel and slip casting are still used, but not to the same extent as formerly. The jolly, introduced during the 18th century is much used for making cups and circular plates. It is similar to the wheel in appearance except that the head consists of a plaster mold. As it revolves, the interior of the plate is shaped by pressing the clay against the head, while the exterior, Including the foot ring, is shaped by a profile brought into contact with the clay. Machines which make both cups and plates automatically on this principle have now been introduced. Small parts, such as cup handles, are made separately by pressing clay into molds, and are subsequently attached to the vessel by "luting", the term used when clay slip is used as an adhesive. Extrusion, which consists of pressing the clay body through a shaped mouthpiece (like toothpaste from a tube) is used in brick making and for pipes, rods, and so forth. Pressing with steel‑lies is becoming more common; the body can be in a wet, semi‑wet, or dry state." According to this description even bricks, pipes, rods and so on would be included in the term "pottery" This is a learned Article dealing with the composition and method of manufacture of "pottery" and "porcelain". It does not, however, mean that the inclusion of bricks, pipes, rods etc. in the terms "pottery" for the purpose of ceramics would lead to its adoption in common parlance. In Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edn., Vol. II, page 1934, "pottery" has been shown to mean‑ "(a) where made from certain earthy materials, usually clay, shaped while moist and soft, and hardened by heat; (b) in a narrower sense the coarser kinds of vessels was made distinguished from porcelain, and also from brie tiling etc." In the narrower sense, therefore, it only denotes vessels. Pipe manufactured by the petitioner can hardly be called a vessel because it has no use for the purpose of containing anything. It is only used as a conduit. If it were to be used in the larger sense than the aforesaid pipes would be covered by the meaning given under the first head. A reference to Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 162 would Indicate that‑ "The first rule is that general statutes will prima facie be presumed to use words in their popular sense. This rule was stated by Lord Tenterden in Attorney‑General v. Winstanley (1831) 2 D & Cf. 302, "the words of an Act of Parliament which are not applied to any particular science or art" are to be construed 'as they are understood in common language'. Critical refinements and subtle distinctions are to be avoided and the obvious and popular meaning of the language should, as a general rule, be followed . . . . . I base my decision, said James L. J. in Cargo ex Schiller (1877) 2 P D 45 on the words of the statute as they would be understood by plain men who know nothing of the technical rule of the Court of Admirality, or of flotsam, lagan, jetsam." Now this could hardly be denied that in common parlance "pottery" is restricted to its narrower meaning, i.e., vessels made of earthenware. Two separate notifications were issued on 27‑6‑1951 by the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division), one was No. 7 and the other bore No.

9. In the present case we are concerned with No.

9. Notification No. 7 describes the articles which are exempt from sales tax generally. On the other hand, Notification No. 9 lists certain articles which are exempt from tax only if they have been "manufactured or produced in Pakistan." In the previous notification "bricks" appear as Item No.

34. It, therefore, makes it clear that the word "pottery" was used in the narrower sense in the latter notifica tion. Had it been used in the broader sense 'bricks" would have been covered by this expression. In that case item No. 24 of Notification No. 9 would have specifically excluded "bricks" to give full play to item 34 of the other notification. This has, however, not been done. The framers of the notification were, therefore, quite clear in their mind that "bricks" could not be included In "pottery". This being the case earthenware pipes would not be covered by Item No. 24 of the latter notification since the word "pottery" has to be interpreted in the narrower sense. The fact that the word "pottery" has been used in the same item as "crockery" is "in accordance with established authority itself a ground for holding that the two words have been used in a cognate sense. Reference may, in this connection, be made to Broom's Legal Maxims, p. 396 where the maxim noscitur a sociis i.e., the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associate with it have been dealt with. The discussion shows that Lord Bacon had laid down the rule that "the coupling of words together shows that they are to be understood in the same sense." It has been further stated at p. 400 that‑ "In the construction of statutes, likewise, the rule noscitur a sociis is frequently applied, the meaning of a word and consequently, the intention of the Legislature, being ascertain ed by reference to the context, and by considering whether h the word in question and the surrounding words b are, in fact, ejusdem generis, and referable to the same subject‑matter." Similarly Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., at p. 321 provides that‑ "When two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together noscitur a sociis. They are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to less general." In Zamiruddin Ahmad v. Havas Khan (P L D 1969 S C 57) it was observed :‑-- "The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as there is no qualifying word before the word "contracts" in the provision in question and further as contract within the meaning of the Contract Act means both oral and written contracts, the Courts below were wrong in taking the view that only written contracts were meant in the provision in question. The word "contracts" has been used along with "receipts or other documents". There are authorities for the proposition that "when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together noscunture a sociis they are understood to be used in their cogent sense". "They take, as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general." (See Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, p. 332). Crawford in the Construction of Statutes, p. 325 says:-- "In order to ascertain the meaning of any word or phrase that is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one meaning, the Court may properly resort to the other words which the n ambiguous word is associated in the statute. Accordingly, if several words are connected by a copulative conjunction a presumption arises that they are of the same class, unless, of course, a contrary intention is indicated. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to two decisions of the East Pakistan High Court wherein suits based on oral contracts were found to be exclusively triable by Conciliation Courts. These decisions are reported as Muhammad Nurul Islam v. Anant Ram Sarma P L D 1965 Dacca 288 and Civil Reference No. 1 of 1965 (P L D 1966 Dacca 465). We may point out that in these cases the question whether the word "cantracts" In subsection (1) of Section B of Part I of the Schedule includes both oral and written contracts were not specifically raised. In our view the context in which the word contracts has been used in the said provision clearly indicates that written contracts are only meant." Dealing with the notifications Issued by Government granting exemption, It was held in Abdul Khaliq v. Sher Muhammad (P L D 1961 B J 79) that‑ "It is a fundamental principle of Interpretation of statutes and of the notification or orders issued there under that the Courts have to proceed on the assumption that each word therein was, used with a purpose, and another principle is that where an exemption is granted the order or notification granting exemption should receive a strut interpretation." Similarly In Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income‑tax (Central), Karachi (P L D 1966 S C 828) it was held that‑ "Provisions granting exemptions or privileges have to be construed strictly against the person claiming the exemption or the privilege." It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Brussels nomenclature "pottery" is not given as a heading. Part 2 of Chapter 69 also deals with the heading "Other than ceramic products". Item No. 69 thus under this head deals with all common porous pottery and it was submitted that "guttering pipe" would fall under this nomenclature. In other words, it would be included in the term porous pottery which again would be included in the wider term "ceramic products." We are afraid we do not see eye to eye with learned counsel on this point because he has not been able to establish that it is the Brussel's Nomenclature which has been accepted as the basis for the notification issued under the Sales Tax Act and particularly the notification in question. "Pottery" in the common acceptation of the expression means vessels made of earthenware. As has been seen above, pipes cannot be included in the term "vessels". Having been used In the same item as the word "'crockery", the expression "pottery" has to be understood in a cognate sense and its meanings have to be ascertained by reference to the meaning of the word "crockery". Earthenware pipes thus cannot be included in the term "pottery" in item No. 24, It has to be kept in mind that since the notification deals with the exemption of certain items from tax it has to be construed strictly. The reference is consequently answered in the negative. Reference rejected.