Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ... vs Gordhandas Tokersey on 1 February, 1983
In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gordhandas Tokersey [1983] 52 STC 381 the second case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was whether sandalwood and sandalwood oil fall within entry 19 of Schedule "E" to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The learned Judges held that neither sandalwood nor sandalwood oil were perfumes falling within entry 19 of Schedule "E" to the Act. The Bench also held that the definition of the word "perfume" in entry 19 refers to such preparations as are commonly known in the market for use on the body as perfumes and as sandalwood and sandalwood oil were not used as perfumes in its natural state they could not be classified as perfumes. The Bench also observed that everything possessing fragrance need not be necessarily a perfume. The principle laid down in that case does not in any way advance the case of the petitioner.
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
A. Boake Roberts And Co. (India) Ltd. ... vs The Board Of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) on 6 January, 1978
In Boake Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue [1978] 42 STC 270, the third and the last case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court was whether the synthetic essential oils used for preparation of toilet articles like soap, powder, etc., fall within entry 51 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Bench applied the rule of ejusdem generis and held that in construing an item in entry 51, the courts should not disregard the effect arising from the association of that item with other items and the limitation or expansion of the meaning of that item by such association. The mere fact that an article would emanate the same type of fragrance or odour would not bring the items in question within the meaning of entry 51 of that Act. The principle laid down in that case also does not advance in any way the case of the petitioner.
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs P. Sukumaran on 9 January, 1989
In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sukumaran [1989] 74 STC 185, the first case relied on by the learned counsel, the question before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was whether "Rasna" falls within the meaning of entry 25-P of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Division Bench held that it did not. A perusal of the judgment shows that the case turned on the wording of the entry. To bring "Rasna" within the meaning of that entry it was necessary to show that it was a non-alcoholic drink and beverage bottled or canned and sold under a brand name. Therefore, the said judgment, in our view, does not help the petitioner in any way.
1