B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the rate of terminal tax which can be imposed on sodium chloride which is imported by the petitioner for the manufacture of caustic soda.
(2) There is little dispute on facts in the present case. It is a admitted case of the parties that the terminal tax is livable under Section 178 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on the rates prescribed from time to time. The petitioner has been importing sodium chloride. Previously it was being termed by the petitioner as common salt. Subsequently the petitioner has been terming this material as salt for industrial purposes. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the reference limeade that the import is for industrial purposes in order to get higher priority for railway booking.
(3) In the 10th schedule to the Municipal Corporation Act rates of terminal tax on different classes of goods is specified. In Class Iii, Item No. 9 reads as follows : - Class III-ARTICLES Used For Fuel, Lighting And Washing 9. Potash, ritha, soda, sajji, multani, saltpetre, alum, Khari (sitta) salt and other saline substances. Rs. 0.30'
(4) In Class Ix, Item No. 3 the rate of terminal tax on Chemicals is prescribed. The said entry reads as follows : - Class IX-MISCELLANEOUS 3. Chemicals (Except those chargeable under any other class), distilled water and sulphur in casks or barrels or bags. Rs. 1.20'
(5) It is pertinent to note that common salt as such is not specifically mentioned either in Class Iii or in Class IX. It may also be noted that articles of food and drink are specified in Class 1. There is no mention of any type of salt therein.
(6) In exercise of powers conferred by Section 181 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, a notification dated 7th April, 1958 was issued. According to this notification the Government exempted from payment of terminal tax a number of goods specified therein. One of the items mentioned was 'Common salt'.
(7) The case of the petitioner before the terminal tax authorities had been that it had been importing only common salt. This was so mentioned in their letter dated 1st February, 1973 written to the Terminal Tax Officer. According to the petitioner sodium chloride which was imported by it was common salt and it was exempted from terminal tax.
(8) Terminal Tax Officer vide letter dated 6th December, 1973 informed the petitioner that it is only common salt used for domestic consumption which was exempt from payment of terminal tax. According to him the Chemical sodium chloride used for industrial purposes was chargeable to terminal tax at the rate of Rs 1.20 per quintal. The respondents also issued a circular dated 6th December, 1973, which reads as follows : There is some confusion regarding the Terminal Tax chargeable on the item Sodium Chloride Used For Industrial Purpose, which is sometimes shown as 'COMMON SALT' by the importers in order to get the benefit of the exemption order of the Terminal Tax Rules. I would like to make it clear that only common salt which is used for domestic consumption is exempted under the rules but not the item Sodium Chloride Used For Industrial Purpose which is, to all intents and purpose, is a Chemical, chargeable at the rate .of Rs. 1. 20 pet quintal. The distinction between the two items should be noted by the Terminal Tax staff so that there is no confusion in this matter.'
(9) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the decision of the Terminal Tax Officer contained in the aforesaid letter dated 6th December, 1973. The challenge is also to the circular issued by Respondent No. 3 also dated 6ih December, 1973. According to the petitioner it was not liable to pay any terminal tax because what is imported by it into Delhi is common salt. In the alternative it is pleaded that it can only be taxed at the rate of Rs. 0.30 per quintal under Item 9 of Class Iii and under no circumstances can it be regarded as a Chemical which will be taxable under Class IX.
(10) On behalf of the respondents it was firstly contended that there is an alternative remedy which was available to the petitioner which has not been availed of. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the salt which is imported by the petitioner was used for industrial purposes and, thereforee, it is rightly taxable as Chemical and is not entitled to exemption by its being regarded as common salt.
(11) Ordinarily, the Court would not have exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution if an alternative remedy was available. In the present case the real challenge is to the circular which had been issued by the Terminal Tax Officer on 6th December, 1973. No provision has been shown tome which would enable such a circular to be challenged by way of an appeal. The challenge, if any, by way of an appeal would be only after the levy of terminal tax. What the petitioner is challenging here is a policy decision which has been taken by the Terminal Tax Officer to the effect that sodium chloride used for industrial purposes, which is also sometimes called common salt, is not exempt from the levy of terminal tax. As this decision could not have been challenged in any appeal, the preliminary objection taken by the counsel for the respondents must fail.
(12) The only question which has to be seen is as to what is common salt. The exemption given by the issuance of notification under Section 181 does not qualify the words 'Common salt'. It could have been stated that the exemption with regard to import of common salt was restricted to common salt which was to be used for eating purposes. This is not so in the present case.
(13) As I look at the schedule, one finds same item being taxed at different rates depending upon the use to which it is put. For example, under Class Iv terminal tax is imposed on wood at a different rate, than tax being imposed on wood under Item No. 7 in Class IX. The difference of rate is dependent upon the use to which the wood is put. It would, thereforee, make sense if in the exemption notification it had been specified that common salt used only for domestic purposes would be exempt from terminal tax. This has, however, not been specified in the notification exempting common salt.
(14) What is common salt is the next question. My attention has been drawn not only to the dictionary meaning of the word 'salt' where it has been stated that 'Salt means sodium chloride and is commonly called common salt' but my attention has also been drawn to the following passage from Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 16, Page 192) in which it is, inter alia, stated as follows : - Salt and Salt production Salt, sodium chloride (symbol, NaC1), is a mineral substance of great importance to man. The mineral form, halite or rock salt, is sometimes called common salt to distinguish it from a class of Chemical compounds called salts.'.
(15) From the aforesaid passage it is clear that the words used in exemption notification is 'common salt' and not 'salt' because all types of Chemical compounds are called 'salt', whereas only one type of Chemical compound is called 'common salt' and that is sodium chloride. It would mean that the intention was to grant exemption only to the Chemical known as sodium chloride, which was also known as common salt. The intention was not to grant exemption to other types of salts or other types of Chemical compounds. Even in the publication of the Government of India, namely, The Salt Industry in India' published by the Salt Commissioner, Government of India (1956), revised edition, in Chapter Ii under the heading 'Common Salt-Properties and Uses', various uses of common salt are set out. A chart illustrating 'The more important uses for salt', is also set out in which one of the main uses of common salt is described as its use in Electro Chemical Industry Chlorine and Caustic Soda. Amongst its miscellaneous uses it is stated as a food for human consumption and is described as common salt. To put it differently, common salt is a common terminology which is used in the market for describing sodium chloride. In the exemption notification instead of giving the Chemical name it is the common term which has been included.
(16) It is not disputes by the respondents that what is imported by the petitioners is sodium chloride. In fact in the circular dated 6th December, 1973 reference has been made to sodium chloride which is used for industrial purposes and which, in the circular, it is stated that the importers sometimes term that commodity as common salt. By a circular exemption cannot be taken away what has been granted by a valid notification issued under Section 181 of the Municipal Corporation Act. What has been attempted to be done by issuing the circular dated 6th December, 1973 is to try and limit the extent of exemption which was in fact granted by the exemption notification dated 7th April, 1958 The Terminal Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue such a circular which would, in effect, take away the exemption which had been granted by the aforesaid exemption notification.
(17) For the aforesaid reasons, it must follow that the petitioner is. entitled to claim benefit of the exemption notification dated 7th April, 1958 as what they were importing was common salt whose Chemical term was sodium chloride it was immaterial as to what use the imported material was put to because in the exemption notification there was no such limitation.
(18) For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The letter and circular dated 6th December. 1973 arc quashed (Annexure F and G to the petition). The parties arc left to bear their own costs. The bank; guarantees furnished by the petitioner should be discharged forthwith.