9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2). The order of the Assessing Authority (P. 1) was set aside and the Assessing Authority was directed to calculate the sales tax on the sales of dhoop and aggarbatti at the rate of 6 per cent instead of 10 per cent. The joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner initiated suo motu revisional proceedings to examine the legality or propriety of the order P. 2 and vide order dated May 22, 1979 (P. 3) set aside the same and restored that of the Assessing Authority (P. 1), holding that the dhoop and aggarbatti were liable to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The petitioner filed a revision against the order P. 3 which was dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, vide order dated August 14, 1980 (P. 4). The petitioner has assailed the orders P. 1, P. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it shall be assumed that it did not exist there in 1973-74. The word "perfumery" was included in entry No. 16 of Schedule A to the Act before its substitution in 1979. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. [1970] 25 STC 151 (SC) held that the word "perfume" in item No. 37 of Notification No. 905/X dated March 31, 1956 issued under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 should be construed in its ordinary sense, i.e., as meaning any substance natural or prepared which emits or is capable of emitting an agreeable odour either when burned or by the application of some foreign matter to induce any chemical reaction which results in fragrant odours being released from that substance. "D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occurs in entry No. 16, it cannot include dhoop and aggarbatti. Reliance has been placed on Assessing Authority, Amritsar v. Amir Chand Om Parkash [1974] 33 STC 120 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Gordhandas Tokersey [1983] 52 STC 381. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. It has been held in Amir Chand Om Parkash's case [1974] 33 STC 120: "So far as dhoop and aggarbatti are concerned, there is another way of looking at the matter. The entry (i.e., entry No. 16) is 'cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods.......' The context in which the word 'perfumery' occurs shows that what is meant by all the three general items 'cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods' are articles which are u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terpreted in Amir Chand Om Parkash's case [1974] 33 STC 120 in the context it has been used in entry No. 16 of Schedule A to the Act. The Bombay High Court in Gordhandas Tokersey's case [1983] 52 STC 381 also interpreted the words in the context they had been used. In A. Boake Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. [Now Bush Boake, Allen (India) Ltd.] v. Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Chepauk, Madras [1978] 42 STC 270, the Madras High Court was required to consider entry 51 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 prior to its amendment by Act 7 of 1977. The relevant entry 51 described the goods as "scents and perfumes, powders, snows (including all purpose creams and cold and vanishing creams) and scented hair oi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
