Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Plastic Products Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. on 21 September, 1966 cites

Thakur Amar Singhji vs State Of Rajasthan(And Other ... on 15 April, 1955

7. It is plain that the dictionary meaning of 'toilet' is very wide and toilet requisites cover a large variety of articles ranging from toilet paper, toilet cloth to the requirements of the dressing table and bathroom. If that is the meaning which has to be given to toilet requisites then a safety razor would conceivably fall within it. That, however, is not the meaning that has to be given to those words in the context in which they are used in the notification. Such meaning could only have been given if Item 6 "toilet requisites" had stood alone but they arc preceded by the specific word "cosmetic" and therefore the rule of ejusdem generis in the construction of statutes will come into play In any event it is unnecessary to give any conclusive decision on this aspect as we are taking the view that razors complete or incomplete are not toilet requisites within Item 6 of the notification. The rule of ejusdem generis has been considered in three cases by the Supreme Court In Thakur Amar Singhji v State of Rajasthan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 185 - Full Document

The State Of Bombay vs Ali Gulshan on 4 October, 1955

AIR 1955 SC 504 it was pointed out that the true scope of the rule of 'ejusdem generis' is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should he construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified and not its reverse, that specific words which precede are controlled by the genera) words which follow Again in State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Etc vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola on 14 March, 1961

8. Therefore, what has to be considered is the scheme of the notification No. 905 in selecting certain goods for single point higher taxation The intention was quite clear and that was that the general words which followed the specific word were to be given a restricted meaning. Cosmetics" was the specific word and this was followed by toilet requisites" In the context, manufacturers of all toilet requisites were not to be taxed at a higher rate. It was only the manufacturer of such toilet requisites as would be of the same genus as "cosmetics" that were to suffer the higher tax. To take some examples to illustrate the point, it is manifest that toilet paper, toilet cloth, toilet equipment needed for a dressing room or bath room would not fall within the mischief of Item 6 Nor could it ever have been the intention to include all kinds of articles or artificial aids, which might go to beautify or render the body more beautiful as toilet requisites such as necklaces jewellery, hairpins scissor; bangles. On the rule of 'ejusdem generis', therefore, "toilet requisites" must be confined to those articles which are of the same genus as "cosmetics" If that be the true interpretation of the words "toilet requisites" it is difficult, if not impossible to conceive, of a safety razor with or without a blade as being of the same genus as "cosmetics" though it may be a "toilet requisite" within the wider dictionary meaning It only remains to notice the cases cited at the Bar The Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer Akola, (1961) 12 STC 286=(AIR 1961 SC 1325) held that "Pan" was not "vegetable" within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule 11 of the C P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 334 - J L Kapur - Full Document

C.C. Mahajan And Co. vs The State Of Bombay on 4 October, 1957

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
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co., Mettur Dam vs State Of Madras on 8 July, 1964

In other words the contention was that even if a plastic safety razor manufactured could be considered to be a toilet requisite it would not qualify as such for the purpose of the said notification, for the reason that by itself it cannot be used as a toilet requisite and required the insertion of a safety blade before it can be put into use Reliance for this proposition was placed on Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v The State of Madras, (1965) 16 STC 9=(AIR 1965 Mad 291) (Sandalwood oil held not to be a "perfume or scent"). Deputy Commr of Commerical Taxes v lyanar Coffee and Tea Co. Tuticorin.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1