Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Vicco Laboratories on 20 February, 1968 cites

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

3. Against this order, the respondents preferred a revision before the Tribunal contending that the dental power was not a toilet article and this contention was accepted by the Tribunal and it restored the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Tribunal has now referred the above question to us. In reversing the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal purported to follow a decision of the Madras High Court in V. P. Somasundara Mudaliar v. The State of Madras ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 943.) in which the Court has held that tooth-powder would not be included in entry 51 of the Madras Act, which entry was as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

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

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 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

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

In a more recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Plastic Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1967] 19 S.T.C. 480.), the question was whether a plastic safety-razor would be a toilet requisite. In considering the question at page 483 of the report, the Court referred to the definition of the word "toilet" and "toiletry" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary and "toiletry" there included preparation such as soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth-paste, shaving cream, cologne etc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - M H Beg - Full Document
1