1972 (8) TMI 109 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Palmolive shampoo (large size) sold under Bill No. 505 dated July 15, 1964, is a toilet article within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or is soap within the meaning of entry 28 of Schedule C or is covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and liable to tax accordingly? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Colgate tooth-paste and (2) Colgate tooth-brush sold under Bill No. 505 dated July 15, 1964, are toilet articles within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E or are covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and liable to tax accordingly? Held that - Appeal allowed part. Set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it relates to tooth-paste and tooth-brush. Both of them, in our opinion, are toilet articles within the meaning of entry 21A of Schedule E to the Act. We, however, uphold the judgment of the High Court in so far as the High Court has held that shampoo is soap within the meaning of entry 28 of Schedule C to the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "toilet articles" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Classification of Palmolive shampoo, Colgate tooth-paste, and Colgate tooth-brush for tax purposes.
3. Application of relevant entries in Schedule C and Schedule E of the Act to determine tax liability.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Gujarat High Court's judgment on the interpretation of the term "toilet articles" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondent had applied for a determination of the tax rate on Palmolive shampoo, Colgate tooth-paste, and Colgate tooth-brush. The Deputy Commissioner and the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal considered the products as toilet articles and liable for tax under entry 21A of Schedule E. The High Court, however, classified Palmolive shampoo as soap under entry 28 of Schedule C and the tooth-paste and tooth-brush under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. The appellant contended that all three products should be considered toilet articles under entry 21A of Schedule E. The Court referred to the Sarin Chemical Laboratory case, establishing that tooth-paste is a toilet requisite. The dictionary meanings of "cosmetic," "toilet," and "toiletry" supported this conclusion. The Court rejected the argument that the case law applied only to the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as common parlance definitions were relevant. The Court also cited the Vicco Laboratories case, affirming dental powder as a toilet article. The use of a tooth-brush for teeth cleansing qualified it as a toilet article. The High Court's classification of shampoo as soap was upheld based on its essential ingredients aligning with soap characteristics. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, recognizing tooth-paste and tooth-brush as toilet articles under entry 21A of Schedule E, while affirming shampoo as soap under entry 28 of Schedule C. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.