Sujata V. Manohar, J.
1. This is a reference at the instance of the department under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax act, 1959. The respondents, Kalpana Waterproof Products Manufacturing Company are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the period 13th November, 1966, to 2nd November, 1967. The respondents were assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, B Ward, Unit III, under an order dated 30th September, 1970. The Sales Tax Officer held that the sales of polythene lined and paper lined hessain bags were not covered by entry 6 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, but fell under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act. Accordingly he taxed the sales of such bags to sales tax and general sales tax under entry 22 of Schedule E. This order was upheld in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner. The respondents thereupon preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 11th April, 1974, leave was sought by the respondents to adduce material and evidence to show that in trade parlance bags in question would be gunny bags covered under entry 6 of Schedule C. The Tribunal thereupon remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner to allow the assessee to produce evidence before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner was also directed to submit his report in the matter.
2. After remand the respondents filed certificates from certain manufacturers of such bags and dealers in the trade. They also led evidence of three persons. The applicants relied upon certain newspaper cuttings. Ultimately after taking into account the evidence produced before him the Assistant Commissioner made a report dated 31st July, 1974, and forwarded the same to the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that polythene lined and paper lined hessian bags were a variety of hessian bags and hence they were covered by entry 6 of Schedule C.
3. From this finding of the Tribunal the following question has been referred to us at the instance of the applicant :
'Whether on the evidence and material produced in this case and on a true and proper interpretation of entry 6 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that polythene lined and paper lined hessian bags are covered by the said entry ?'
4. Entry 6 of Schedule C at the relevant time was as follows : 'Gunny bags and hessian; jute twine; ...' The respondents led the evidence of some manufacturers of such polythene lined or paper lined hessian bags. They also led the evidence of dealers in such gunny bags. All these persons have deposed to the effect that polythene lined and paper lined hessian bags are a variety of gunny bags or hessian bags which are used for packing special materials such as chemicals, as against the ordinary gunny bags which are used for packing items like onions, potatoes and so on.
5. The applicants relied upon some items appearing in the Economic Times and contended that under the heading 'Market Trends' and its sub-heading 'jute' in the newspaper there was no reference to polythene lined or paper lined gunny bags. The Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence relating to trade parlance which was led before the Assistant Commissioner including the newspaper cuttings and it has come to a conclusion that polythene lined or paper lined gunny bags are in trade parlance known as a variety of gunny bags and therefore are not considered as something different from gunny bags. This conclusion has been arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence which was on record before it. In its judgment the Tribunal has analysed this evidence and come to the above conclusion. The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, relating to trade parlance is based on a proper consideration of evidence and we do not see any reason why we should interfere with the same. It is beyond our jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence which was led in the case before the sales tax authorities.
6. It was submitted by Mr. Jetly, learned counsel for the applicants, that polythene lined gunny bags or paper lined gunny bags are a new commercial commodity and therefore they are not covered by entry 6 of Schedule C. In considering, however, whether a commodity falls within a particular entry in a schedule to the Sales Tax Act or not, what is required to be seen is whether the commodity is considered by the trade as falling within the description of the entry concerned. As pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sultan Shev Co. reported in [1977] 40 STC 583 , in classifying a commodity for the purposes of entries in a schedule to the Sales Tax Act the question is not whether it is a new commercial commodity. The question is whether it is so known in trade parlance that it is covered by the description in the entry in question.
7. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agarwal & Co. reported in [1983] 52 STC 117 a Division Bench of this High Court (to which one of us was a party) has observed that the general term used in an entry covers that commodity in all its forms and varieties unless there are words to the contrary in the entry in question or there are other reasons why any given variety is not to be included in the general term. The term 'gunny bags', therefore, would include all varieties of gunny bags including polythene lined or paper lined gunny bags.
8. Our attention was drawn to a number of cases where the courts went into the question of classification of an item under one or the other entries in a schedule to the Sales Tax Act. It was submitted by Mr. Jetly, relying upon these decisions, that it was open to us to re-examine the evidence in order to decide whether the gunny bags of the kind in question would fall under entry 6 of Schedule C or whether they would be relegated to the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. In our view we are not sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has arrived at its conclusion on the basis of the evidence which was before it. We, therefore, cannot reappraise this evidence in proceedings which are by way of reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
9. In the premises the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The applicants to pay to the respondents costs of the reference.
10. Reference answered in the affirmative.