Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing C.C. Mahajan And Co. vs The State Of Bombay on 4 October, 1957

Prakash Trading Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 1968

The decision in C. C. Mahajan and Co. v. The State of Bombay ([1958] 9 S.T.C. 133) referred to and it was pointed out that if an article used for grooming one's part of the body is a toilet article, by no process of reasoning can an article, i.e., like tooth-powder which is used for cleansing another part of the body, viz. teeth, can be said not to be a "toilet article" and outside entry No. 39. This decision was vehemently relied upon by the learned Advocate-General. It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the said decision is correct in the context of the two separate relevant entries 39 and 66 in the aforesaid Act in which the words "toilet and cosmetics" are not used in close association. We would, however, record our express dissent from the aforesaid decision in so far as it proceeds on the assumption that the cleansing of a part of the body would in all cases amount to grooming. An obvious illustration would be the case of toilet-paper, which is always used in cleansing in W.C. where nobody would think of any grooming even though there would be even internal cleaning of a person's body by enema, such or other articles. There may be cleansing of even other parts of the body, where necessarily the result of grooming may not be there. Therefore, in any event, the said decision would not help us in resolving; the present controversy. It would have to be resolved by looking to the entry 21A before us. We are mentioning this decision at this stage only to point out as to how "toilet articles" in the context of various entries have been Interpreted in various decisions. The other line of decisions has interpreted the expression "toilet requisites" which would not at all be helpful in the interpretation of entry 21A of our Act, where the Legislature purposely does not use the expression "toilet requisite" which is used in similar other legislations.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Haran D. Manufacturing Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 1993

In C. C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 STC 133 the Bombay High Court held that the product sold in the market as Badshahi soap was not really a soap under the relevant entry of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 and that it is only the character of the article that attracts the tax and not the name by which it is known in the market. In the facts of the case it was held that absence of fat in the preparation of "Badshahi soap", which was intended to be used as a depilatory, could not make it a cleansing agent. The test therefore accepted by the Bombay High Court was whether the product in question could be used for the purpose of cleansing and not whether the particular ingredient was present in the manufacture of that product.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - M B Shah - Full Document

Plastic Products Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. on 21 September, 1966

1959 because a tooth powder was only used for rubbing and cleaning the teeth and not for beautifying or enhancing the appearance and the cleaning of the teeth should be regarded as an indispensable daily hygiene intended to protect the teeth and preserve them in good condition In C. C Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay, (1958) 9 STC 133 (Bom) the Bombay High Court held that a powder or soap used as depilatory is one which is used for the purpose of cleaning and grooming one's person and as such it is a toilet article In S. T. Reference No 780 of 1961 (All) a Bench of this Court took the view that Brahmi Amla Hair Oil was both a cosmetic and a toilet requisite and oils other than an edible oil fell within item 6 of the said notification No. ST 905/X These cases only show that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and each case has to be decided on its own facts
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - M H Beg - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Vicco Laboratories on 20 February, 1968

7. On behalf of the department reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in C. C. Mahajan & Co. v. The State of Bombay ([1958] 9 S.T.C. 133.), where the question was whether a depilatory used for the purpose of cleansing and grooming one's a person is a toilet article. Similarly, another question concerned Badshahi soap and Badshahi powder which were used as depilatory and whether they were, therefore, toilet articles. Referring to Webster's New International Dictionary which gives the meaning of "toilet" to be the same as we have reproduced above, the Court held that there can be little doubt that a depilatory is used for the purpose of cleansing and grooming one's person and, therefore, it is a toilet article. If an article used for grooming one part of the body is a toilet article, by no process of reasoning can an article like tooth-powder which is used for cleansing another part of the body, viz., teeth, can be said not to be a toilet article and outside entry No. 39.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

United Trading Agency vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 13 December, 1995

It was further contended that the product is primarily used as a medicinal preparation and merely because it is being capable of being used for other purpose and is incidentally used as toiletry item will not take it away from the entry of medicines to be classed as a toiletry item and for this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu , Adhyaksha Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (P) Ltd. v. Union of India , C.C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 STC 133, State of Madras v. S.P. Vadivel Nadar and Sons [1968] 21 STC 448 (Mad.)
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 7 - B Padmaraj - Full Document

V.P. Somasundara Mudaliar vs The State Of Madras on 12 July, 1963

v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1953] 4 S.T.C. 397, Roopkala Industries v. State of Bombay [1956] 7 S.T.C. 557 and Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 S.T.C. 133, where the questions, whether hair oil, talcum powders and "Badshahi soap" and "Badshahi powder" respectively could be held to be cosmetics or toilet articles, came up for consideration. In our opinion, these cases will not help us in deciding the question whether tooth-powder would come under the goods mentioned in item 51 of the First Schedule. As stated already, tooth-powder is only used for rubbing or cleaning the teeth and not for beautifying or enhancing the appearance. Such cleansing of the teeth should be regarded as an indispensable daily hygiene intended to protect the teeth and preserve them in good condition. We are therefore of opinion that tooth-powder cannot be included in the goods enumerated in item 51 of the First Schedule.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Dandwala vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 1992

14. The other decision on which Ms. Doshit has placed reliance is the Bombay High Court decision in C. C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 STC 133. In the abovesaid decision the question was in respect of soap and powder which were being used as depilatories. The question was whether the abovesaid soap and powder would he toilet articles or not. Applying the similar test it has been pointed out in the aforementioned decision that, though the abovesaid products were also known as soap and powder, they were in fact being utilised as the toilet preparations and were not merely toilet soaps. We are therefore of the opinion that the Sales Tax Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner were also justified in placing reliance upon the abovesaid decision while coming to the conclusion that the product in question would not be a medicine or a drug but would he a hair-oil.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - G T Nanavati - Full Document
1