1984 PLP 1 (PTD)

2. The assessee then filed an appeal before the income-tax Appellate l Tribunal which was accepted on 30-5-1969. The Appellate Tribunal placing reliance on the case of Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong ((1966) 14 Taxation 176), came to the conclusion that the case was covered by the aforesaid notification and the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed for. Therefore, the impugned orders passed against the assessee were set aside.

3. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi then requested the Tribunal that under section 17 (1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 a statement of the case may be drawn up and the aforesaid question may be referred to the High Court for determination.

4. The learned counsel appearing in support of the reference contended that the Central Government, in exercise of powers under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, by notification No. 7, dated the 27th of June, 1951 as amended by Notification No. 5, dated the 18th December, 1953, exempted from payment of sales tax only 'concrete building components' which did not include the wooden doors and windows and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal had arrived at an erroneous finding by granting the exemption claimed for. The learned counsel referred to item 40 of the aforesaid notification which is to the following effect: -- "

40. Concrete building components (including beams, columns, rooting, cement blocks, doors, windows but excluding pipes." The learned counsel contended that the word 'concrete' is to be read with the word 'components' and not with the word 'building' and, therefore, the products made of wood would not be covered within the meanings of the aforesaid exemption. The learned counsel sought support from the observations made in the case of Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (P L D 1966 Dacca 523), wherein, while dealing with the question of exemption of Sheet-glass from payment of sales tax, it was observed that sheet-glass has a multipurpose use, and that apart from being used in components of building it is also used for other purposes, such as in furniture making, in the making of Railway Compartments etc. therefore, by itself it cannot inevitably be connected with building. The illustrations included in the brackets in item 40 were held to relate to such products as by their shape and form, can be identified as building components and therefore it was found that by item 40 of Notification No. 7, material used in the making of building components were not intended to be exempted. Sheet-glass being such material and there being no dispute that it has not been specifically exempted, the claim for exemption in that case was rejected. The learned counsel contended that the aforesaid decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1971 SC205 wherein it was observed that: - "The question under consideration is not free from difficulty. In my opinion, the word 'concrete' should be read with the word `component' and not with the word 'building'. Just as in the phrase good schoolboy. The word 'good' goes with boy and not with school. In the phrase 'concrete building components', the word 'concrete' should go with components rather than with building. So far as the interpretation of the word "concrete" is concerned, it has to be determined according to the meaning it naturally or popularly beats when used in connection with a building." Taking this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel that sheet-glass is used for domestic building any therefore, it is a component of concrete building was repelled and it was held that the word `concrete' should be read with the word 'component' and not with the word 'building' of which cement is an essential ingredient. ,

5. The learned counsel contended that on the same analogy the wooden doors and windows could not be considered as 'concrete building components, and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer was fully justified in refusing the exemption claimed by the respondents. However, it may be observed that the question in controversy in the cited case related only to the exemption claimed for sheet- glass from the payment of the sales tax and the question of the exemption of wooden doors and windows, as such, was not in issue. Therefore, it cannot be said that the exemption claimed for wooden doors and windows could not be granted since the exemption for sheet-glass had been refused. In our opinion the sales tax claimed for wooden doors and windows could not be equated with the case of sheet-glass To the reason than in the illustrations included in the brackets in item 40 of the aforesaid notification there is no mention of sheet-glass but doors and windows, alongwith certain other items, are specifically mentioned. While dealing with this aspect of the case it was observed in (P L D 1966 Dacca 523) in regard to the illustrations of item 40 of the said, notification that: "It seems to me that 'cement blocks, have been included by way of enlargement of the expression 'concrete building components' and "doors and windows" have been included by way of modification because of the fact that they are so much part and parcel of a building that they are included in those expressions by express mention." It was also observed that: -- "If Government intended otherwise, it would not have exempted doors and windows that are so far known to be made of timber or iron. Manufacture of doors and windows of concrete does not seem also to be a practicable proposition .It has not been claimed in the affidavit in opposition that doors and windows rite also made of concrete, and that it is that kind of doors and windows alone that have been exempted under the said item from payment of sales tax. The learned Advocate for the respondent frankly conceded that lie had no information that doors and windows, are also made of concrete, though he claimed that possibility of their being so made in future could not altogether be excluded. It does not appeal to reason that the provi sion for exemption was made keeping in view the future contingency of someone manufacturing or making doors and windows of concrete. It may be presumed that existing facts alone entered the consideration of Government of providing for exemptions in the said notification." In the aforesaid case it was also observed that: - "The illustrations included within the brackets in item 40 are all such finished products as by their very shape and form, can be identified as building components. The illustrations are, in my view, indicative of an intention to restrict the meaning of the word `components' to finished goods that are used as components of buildings as distinguished from materials that go into their making. Sheet-glass is only something that goes, according to the petitioner also, into the making of building components. Obviously, by itself it is not such a component. It is not claimed that sheet-glass manufactured by the petitioner is released in the shape of doors or windows, or of some other building components that can at once be identified as such." Keeping in view the aforesaid observations made in the cited case it is, evident that by item 40 of Notification No. 7, dated 27th of June 1951 a amended by Notification No. 5, dated 18th of December 1953, it was intended to exempt from payment of sales tax not only, concrete building components, but also wooden doors and windows used in building. Since the making of doors and windows with cement or concrete could not be visualized at that time it may be presumed that the exemption was intended for the wooden) doors and windows which were admittedly building components.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, no fault can be found with the opinion formed by the learned Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the question referred to this Court is answered in the affirmative. No order as to costs. M.A.K. Answered in affirmative.