1980 PLP 285 (PTD)

Abdul Haque Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th February 1980. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. ‑‑The question involved in this case is whether "earthenware pipes" fall within the ambit of the word "pottery" used in Item No. 24 of Notification No. 9, dated 27‑6‑1951. The facts which form the background are that the assessee inter alia manufactures and sells earthenware pipes. The turn over‑pertaining to the years 196)‑62 and 1962‑63 was subjected to sales tax by the Sale's Tax Officer. The assessee came up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner claim ing exemption from levy of sales tax on earthenware pipes on the ground that the same were covered by Item No. 24 of Notification No. 9 dated 27‑6‑1951 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under subsection (1) of section 17 of the Sales Tax Act. The plea was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld his order and rejected the second appeal as well. An application was made under section 17(1) of the Sales Tax Act to refer the question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the "earthenware pipes" manufactured by the assessee are not exempt from the levy of sales tax under Item No. 24 of the Sales Tax Notification No. 9 dated 27‑6‑1951. The notification reads as follows: ‑ "Pakistani crockery and pottery (including plastic and glass crockery)." The High Court agreed with the view expressed by the Tribunal and answered the question against the assessee observing that "pottery" in the common acceptation of the expression means vessels made of earthenware and that pipes cannot be included in the term "vessels". It has further observed that the word "pottery" has been used in the same item as "crockery so that the two words have to be understood in a cognate sense. The Court also referred to Broom's Legal Maxim, page 396 where the Maxim "noscitur a socils" i.e. the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it is discussed and it is added that coupling of words together shows that they are to be understood in the same sense and take as it were their colour from each other and the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general. Thus the word "pottery" has to be interpreted in the narrower sense. Before us Mr. Javed Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that every thing made by clay is covered by the word "pottery" and in this connection he relied upon the explanation of the word "pottery" given in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Herein it is stated that the word "pottery" in its widest sen3e includes all objects fashioned from clay and hardened by fire, the word "porcelain" should only be applied to certain well marked varieties of pottery. Pottery is dependent on two important natural propertied of that great and widespread group of rocky or earthy substances known as clays, viz. the property of plasticity and property of being converted when fired into one of the mould. We are not inclined to accept the above definition of the word "pottery"' because a far‑fetched meaning ought not be given to an expression`, used in an exemption clause but that such word should be interpreted) according to its ordinary sense. According to Oxford English Diction ary, the word "pottery" means inter alia "ceramics, the manufacture of earthen vessels, the products of the potters act collectively; pottery-ware and earthenware". These meanings read with the circumstance that the word "pottery" has been coupled with "crockery" shows quite clearly that things like earthen pipes cannot be considered to be pottery because by a stretch of imagination can they be designated as vessels. A vessel is generally a, sort of utensil designed for domestic use and employed in connection with the preparation or serving of food or drink and usually of a size which can be carried by hand. We are inclined to think that the word "pottery" is intended to be used for such articles as vessels and other containers and the pipes cannot be covered by that word. In this view of the matter we do not think that the order of the High Court calls for any interference. According to the office note, this petition is barred by 715 days and in excuse of the delay it is submitted that as the petitioner had applied for the grant of certificate of fitness under section 66‑A (2) of the Income‑tax Act the period spent in prosecuting the said application is liable to be excluded. It is not necessary to examine this plea at any length because we have found that even on merits this petition has no force. The result is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.