Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Murari Brothers - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number S.T.R. No. 1134 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1980]46STC88(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentMurari Brothers
Appellant Advocate The Standing Counsel
Respondent Advocate Kameshwar Prasad, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....sales tax, meerut range, meerut, was justified in holding that the turnover of sale of bhimseni kajal was not to be taxed as cosmetic and toilet requisites ?2. this reference is being treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.3. the assessee manufactures and sells bhimseni kajal. its disclosed turnover for the year 1968-69 was rejected, and the turnover estimated. the estimated turnover was taxed at the rate of ten per cent as, in the view of the sales tax officer, bhimseni kajal sold by the assessee fell within the purview of 'cosmetic and toilet requisites'. the appellate authority, however, held that bhimseni kajal sold by the assessee did not fall within the category of cosmetic or toilet and, as such, imposed tax at the rate of two per cent. the revising.....
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The revising authority has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Meerut Range, Meerut, was justified in holding that the turnover of sale of bhimseni kajal was not to be taxed as cosmetic and toilet requisites ?

2. This reference is being treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.

3. The assessee manufactures and sells bhimseni kajal. Its disclosed turnover for the year 1968-69 was rejected, and the turnover estimated. The estimated turnover was taxed at the rate of ten per cent as, in the view of the Sales Tax Officer, bhimseni kajal sold by the assessee fell within the purview of 'cosmetic and toilet requisites'. The appellate authority, however, held that bhimseni kajal sold by the assessee did not fall within the category of cosmetic or toilet and, as such, imposed tax at the rate of two per cent. The revising authority has recorded a finding that this kajal is seldom used as a cosmetic or toilet requisite, and is commonly used by way of an ayurvedic medicine for treatment of various ailments of the eyes. It also found that bhimseni kajal manufactured by the assessee contains several ingredients which have medicinal properties.

4. Sri V. D. Singh, the learned standing counsel, urged that kajal is used for the beautification of the eyes mostly by womenfolk and, as such, it will fall within the category of cosmetics. In the present case, we are not concerned with the case of kajal, but bhimseni kajal, i.e., kajal manufactured by the assessee, which has been found to be an ayurvedic medicine useful for treatment of ailments of the eyes. In view of the findings recorded by the revising authority, it is clear that bhimseni kajal sold by the assessee is primarily used for its medicinal qualities and not for beautification of the eyes.

5. The view taken by the revising authority is correct. The revision fails and is dismissed. The assessee is entitled to its cost, which is assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //