1984 (11) TMI 300 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of entry 32 of Schedule A and entry 7 of Schedule E under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the classification of "beauty spots" as either 'kumkum' or 'toilet articles'.

The judgment by the Bombay High Court involved a reference from the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding the classification of "beauty spots" sold by a dealer. The question was whether these items were 'kumkum' under entry 32 of Schedule A or 'toilet articles' under entry 7 of Schedule E. The respondent argued that the items were not covered by entry 7 but fell under entry 32 or alternatively entry 22 of Schedule E. The Commissioner initially classified the goods as toilet articles under entry 7. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the items were covered by entry 32 of Schedule A. The Court was tasked with determining the correct classification of the goods based on the relevant entries.

The Court examined the nature of the goods in question, which were round P.V.C. bindies treated with chemicals for skin adhesion, commonly used by Hindu women on their foreheads. The Court noted that 'kumkum' is traditionally applied as a round spot on the forehead by Hindu women. Despite the absence of 'kumkum' in English dictionaries, it is known as a material used for centuries by Hindu women. The Court found no substantial difference between the bindies and 'kumkum', emphasizing their common usage and application. The Court concluded that even if the items could be considered toilet articles, they more appropriately fell under the classification of 'kumkum' in entry 32 of Schedule A.

The Court rejected the argument that the goods were solely toilet articles and could not be labeled as 'kumkum'. It highlighted the evolving connotation of 'kumkum' and the need to interpret tax entries in line with current practices. The Court referenced a decision from the Allahabad High Court regarding 'tikuli', a similar cosmetic item, but found it irrelevant due to the absence of a specific entry for 'kumkum'. The Court disagreed with the characterization of 'kumkum' as solely for beautification, asserting its significance in Hindu traditions for grooming and auspicious symbolism. Ultimately, the Court answered the reference question affirmatively, classifying the goods as 'kumkum' under entry 32 of Schedule A and directed the Commissioner to bear the costs of the reference.