.
Bx
SARIN CHEMICAL‘LABORATORY ran ' * ad
% Ve yf . COMMISSIONER: OF SALES“-TAX,.U.P.
if '
. oot August 7, 1970 aot [J. C. SHAH AND: K: S, HeGpE, JJ.]
_l.P, Sales-Tax-Act U.P. Act of 1948 S$: 3 and-3-A—Tooth, Powder-—I{ tivble 10 tax as toilet pr.qs_ unspecified commodity. 7
On the question whether tootlt powder manufactured ‘by the assessees “ais “cosmetic” or a “toilet: requisite” sliable-to tax under s, 3(A) of the U:P. Sales Tax Act, read with Entry 6 of Notification Na. 905/X dated March, 3],. 1956/or whether it is an unspegified commodity liable to tax under section 3 of the Act, ‘
HELD :—Tooth powder is a toilét and therefore taxable uhder S.3TA) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, read with the Notification.
Neither the expression ‘cosmetic’ nor ‘toilet requisite’ has been defined under ‘the Act. The names of articles, the sales and purchases of which are liable to be taxed given in a statute, unless defined’in'the statute, must be construed, not in a technical sense but as understood in a common parlance. In common parlance a tooth powder is considered as a toilet and that meaning accords with the dictidnary meaning as well. [732 B, H]
Bamavater Budhaiprasad y, The Asstt. Sales Tax Officer, Akola and
Another, 12, S.T.C. 286, followed. ,
V. P. Sanasundaya Mudaliar y. State of Madras 14, S.T.C. 943; Commissioher of‘ Sales ‘Tax'v. Vicco Laboratories, 22 S.T.C. 169, approved,
_ Crvit APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 262, to 265 of 1970. .
Appeals: by special leave from the judgment and order dated Mav 1, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Reference Nos, 249, 250, 251 and 571 of\1966 and Civil Appeals Nos. 266 and 267.of 1970. .
Appeals by’ special leave froin ‘the judgment and order dated January 29, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Reference Nos. 604 and 603 of 1965.
H.R. Gokhdle, Gobind.Das, D.’N. Mishra and B. P. Singh, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
C. B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for the respondent (in all the appeals).
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971J I SCR.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered bv
Hegde, J. These are connected appeals by special leave. The only question raised in these appeals is whether “Sarin Tooth Powder’ manufactured by Mys. Sarin Chemicals Laboratory is “cosmetic” or a “toilet requisite” as held by the High Court of Allaha bad or it is an unspecified commodity liable to sales tax at all points of sale as held by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra.
The contention of M,s. Sarin Chemical Laboratory who is the appellant in all the appeals is that the turn-over relating to the sales of tooth powder is liable to be taxed at the rate of 3 pies per rupee under s. 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereas Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. contends that the said turn over is liable to be taxed at single point under s. 3(A) of that Act read with Entry 6 of the notification No. 905/X dated March 31, 1956. The High Court has accepted the contention of the Commissioner. In these appeals the assessee challenges the conclusion reached by the High Court and supports the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, who held that the tooth powder is an unspecified commodity liable to tax under s. 3 of the Act,
Neither the expression ‘cosmetic’ nor ‘toilet requisite’ has been defined in the Act. The dictionary meaning of the expression ‘cosmetic’ (see Webster’s international Dictionary) is “A preparation to beautify or alter appearance of the body or for cleansing, colouring, conditioning or protecting skin. hair. nails, eyes or teeth”. The same dictionary gives the meaning of the expression “toilet” thus: ‘an act or process of dressing, especially formerly of dressing hair and now usually cleansing and grooming of cne’s person”. The word “toiletry” is explained in the said. dictionary as meaning “an article or preparation used in making one’s toilet such as soap, lotion, cosmetic. tooth paste, shaving cream, cologue ete.” 7
According to the dictionary meaning tooth powder is regarded both as an item of cosmetic and toilet but as observed by this Court in Bamavatar Budhaiprasad v. The Asstt, Sales Tax Officer, Akola and another('), the names of articles, the sales and purchases of which are liable to be taxed given in a statute unless defined in the Statute must be construed not in a technical sense but as understood in common parlance. Therein this Court was called upon to consider whether ‘betel leaves’ could be considered as ‘vegetable’ under item No. 6 of Schedule II of the C. P. Berar Sales Tax Act. 1947. In that case this Court observed that the word ‘vegetable” had not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use.
(1) 12, S. T. C. 286:
SARIN LABORATORY v. C.§.T. (Hegde, J.) 733 jt must be construed fn a popular sense meaning “that sense which people cofversant with the subject matter with which staftite is dealing would attribute to it.” Applying that test this Court-ruled that betel leaves cannot be.considered as ‘vegetable’. In common parlance a tooth powder is considered as a toilet. That meaning zecords with the dictionary meaning as well.
‘The question whether tooth powder can be considered as a toilet came up before the Madris High Court in V. P. Sanasundara Mudaliar v. State of Madras() and before the Bombay High Court in, Commissioner of Sdfes Tax v. Vicco Laboratories(*).
Both the ¢otirts took the view that the tooth powder is a toilet.
The same view has been, taken by the Allahabad High Court. We are in agreement with that view /
In. the result these appea)s fail and. they-aré dimissed with costs—hearing fee one set.
-Y.P. Appeals dismissed.
(1) 14, S. T. C. 943.1, (2) 22.8. T. C. 169.