Skip to content


Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Bansal Bottle Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Revision No. 419 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1982]50STC369(All)
AppellantCommissioner, Sales Tax
RespondentBansal Bottle Company
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateV.K. Rastogi, Adv.
Cases Referred and Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. State of U.P.
Excerpt:
- interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute. - they do not smell like scents or perfumes. the learned standing counsel is, therefore, right in his submission that the tribunal should not have taken upon itself, by personal observation, to decide whether the commodity marketed by the dealer could be treated to be covered by entry 'scents and perfurmes'.since, in the instant case, this is precisely what has been done by the tribunal, it appears desirable to send the matter back to it for reconsideration in accordance with law......october, 1975.6. from a perusal of the first two notifications it is clear that item no. 26 is an entry relating to cosmetics and toilet requisites inclusive of various articles detailed thereafter. entry 82 mentions scents and perfumes to which, in the notification dated 14th april, 1974, were added the words 'excluding agarbattis and dhoopbattis'. there being a specific entry relating to cosmetics, it is reasonable to conclude that perfumes and scents which are used for cosmetic purposes were not intended to be covered by the general entry relating to scents and perfumes. in making an enquiry about a commodity with reference to its inclusion or otherwise in the entry relating to scents and perfumes this aspect is to be kept in mind.7. whether the commodity which was sold by the dealer.....
Judgment:

V.K. Mehrotra, J.

1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has filed this revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act challenging the decision dated 4th June, 1981, of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, taking the view that synthetic essential oils of different varieties sold by the dealer-opposite party-during the year 1975-76 was not exigible to tax under the U.P. Act as 'scents and perfumes' at the rate of 12 per cent. The assessing authority and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, had held the turnover of that sale liable to tax at that rate.

2. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that it examined itself the samples of the articles which had been sold by the dealer. On its own opinion, on the nature of the article, the Tribunal felt that it could not be treated to be covered by the entry 'scents and perfumes'. It has recorded its finding in the following terms:

The appellants have produced before me the synthetic essential oils of different varieties and they have shown that they cannot be used as perfumes or scents. The bottles contained the mark for industrial use only. They do not smell like scents or perfumes. In fact they cannot be used as such. They are synthetic essential oils prepared for the purposes of making soaps and other scented materials. In my opinion, oil whether they are synthetic or natural are oils and must be taxed as such. Synthetic essential oil even though they may have flavour or smell cannot be kept in the category of scents and perfumes; they must be classed as oil and taxed as such.

3. The learned standing counsel for the Commissioner has urged that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in determining, on examining the material itself, that it was not covered by the entry 'perfumes and scents'.

4. It is settled that while dealing with- the question of taxability of articles which have a market, the meaning which should normally be accepted is the one in which the persons concerned with that commodity treat it in the market. Dictionary meaning about it is not. of much use. Further, that the sense in which the framers of the schedules have used the terms in the entries contained in those schedules has also to be seen [see Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. S.N. Bros. AIR 1973 SC 78 and Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. State of U.P. 1981 ATJ 426 (SC)].

5. The notifications relating to the year in question under Section 3-A of the Act, which were brought to my notice by the counsel for the parties, are No. ST-II-332/X-1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971, No. ST-II-1233/X- 10(1)-1974 dated 14th April, 1974, and No. ST-II-8446/X-1(2)-75 dated 1st October, 1975.

6. From a perusal of the first two notifications it is clear that item No. 26 is an entry relating to cosmetics and toilet requisites inclusive of various articles detailed thereafter. Entry 82 mentions scents and perfumes to which, in the notification dated 14th April, 1974, were added the words 'excluding agarbattis and dhoopbattis'. There being a specific entry relating to cosmetics, it is reasonable to conclude that perfumes and scents which are used for cosmetic purposes were not intended to be covered by the general entry relating to scents and perfumes. In making an enquiry about a commodity with reference to its inclusion or otherwise in the entry relating to scents and perfumes this aspect is to be kept in mind.

7. Whether the commodity which was sold by the dealer during the year in question is known to the people concerned with its sale and purchase as scent or perfume is a fact to be determined with reference to the relevant material to be brought on record in the case, including judicial pronouncements, if any, on the subject. Such a matter is normally not to be determined solely on the basis of personal observation by an authority constituted for the purpose under the Act. The learned standing counsel is, therefore, right in his submission that the Tribunal should not have taken upon itself, by personal observation, to decide whether the commodity marketed by the dealer could be treated to be covered by entry 'scents and perfurmes'. Since, in the instant case, this is precisely what has been done by the Tribunal, it appears desirable to send the matter back to it for reconsideration in accordance with law.

8. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to it for decision afresh in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Tribunal in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act.

9. Parties shall bear their own costs.


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