ORDER G. C. BHARUKA, J. - In the present revision petition the only question of law which has fallen for our consideration is as to what was the rate of tax applicable to paper napkins during the period April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985. 2. According to the petitioner, the paper napkins sold by it can be subjected to tax at the rate of 8 per cent being covered by Sl. No. 125 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, "the Act") or at the rate of 7 per cent under section 5(1) of the Act. But the Tribunal by rejecting the said contention had held the paper napkins sold by the petitioner as falling under Sl. No. 125 of the said Schedule being an article of toilet thereby holding that the same is liable for tax at the rate of 12 per cent. 3. Section 5(1) of the Act as it stood at the material time, inter alia, provided that every dealer shall pay tax for each year's taxable turnover at the rate of 7 per cent at the point of first sale. Notwithstanding this provision, sub-section (3) of this section further provided that in case of goods mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act the rate of tax specified therein will be applicable in relation to the taxable turnover of such goods. 4. The competing claims of the assessee and the revenue are referable to two entries in the Second Schedule to the Act which are at Sl. Nos. 65 and 125 thereof. These entries read as under : "Sl. No. 65. - Toilet articles except toilet soaps and such other toilet articles as may be specified by the State Government by Notification in the Official Gazette. Explanation IV appearing under this entry has defined 'toilet articles' to mean any article which is intended for use in the toilet of the human body or in perfuming apparel of any description; or any substance intended to 'cleanse, improve or alter the complexion, skin, hair or teeth and includes deodorants and perfumes. "Sl. No. 125. - All kinds of paper including carbon paper, blotting paper, water proof paper, PVC coated paper, ferro paper, ammonia paper, stencil paper but excluding paper falling under serial number 55, pulp boards, art boards, duplex boards, triple boards, card boards, corrugated boards, and the like, cellophane." 5. "Sl. No. 125. - All kinds of paper including carbon paper, blotting paper, water proof paper, PVC coated paper, ferro paper, ammonia paper, stencil paper but excluding paper falling under serial number 55, pulp boards, art boards, duplex boards, triple boards, card boards, corrugated boards, and the like, cellophane." 5. According to the petitioner's own case, the paper napkins sold by it are square sheets of papers which are used on the dining table by way of good table manners. According to Webster's Dictionary, "napkin" is a cloth used at meals for wiping the fingers and lips. It is a matter of common knowledge that of late now a days for the sake of convenience on good many occasions napkins made of paper instead of cloth are used for the said purpose. 6. Though the word "paper" has not been defined under the Act, but in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. (1977) 39 STC 8 , the Supreme Court has held that in popular parlance the word "paper" is understood as meaning a substance which is used for bearing writing, or printing, or for packing, or for drawing on, or for decorating, or covering the walls. In this case the Supreme Court had rejected the claim that "carbon "paper" is covered by the word "paper" for ascertaining the taxability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. 7. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of use to which paper napkins are put for, as admitted by the petitioner himself, or even going by the popular parlance meaning, "paper napkins" cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be falling under the category of "paper" of any kind. The prefix "all kinds of" placed in the entry in Sl. No. 125 before "paper" can be of no help to the petitioner. For claiming to be a species of "paper" in the said entry, the commodity must first be established to be "paper" in the sense it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Bench decision of this Court in the case of R. N. Dongare v. State of Karnataka [1990] 77 STC 462 is of no help to the petitioner because the words "plastic materials" as appearing in the expression "all articles made of plastics...." impugned in that case had not acquired any defined judicial meaning based on any common parlance understanding. 8. 8. Further, keeping in view the definition of "toilet articles" as set out in the explanation to Sl. No. 65 of the Second Schedule as quoted above, all articles which are intended to be used in the toilet of human body are covered by the said expression. In the present case, admittedly "paper napkins" are used for wiping the lips and fingers at meals. Therefore, there cannot be any escape from holding that the same are "toilet articles", for the purpose of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act read with Sl. No. 65 of the Second Schedule thereof, making the same liable for tax at the rate of 12 per cent. 9. For the said reasons, in our opinion, the impugned order of the Tribunal requires no interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.