Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.46 seconds)

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

Neither the expression 'cosmetic' nor 'toilet requisite' has been defined in the Act. The dictionary meaning of the expression 'cosmetic' (see Webster's international Dictionary) is "A preparation to beautify or alter appearance of the body or for cleansing, coloring, conditioning or protecting skin, 'hair, nails, eyes or teeth". The same dictionary gives the meaning of the expression "toilet" thus : 'an act or process of dressing, especially formerly of dressing hair and now usually cleansing and grooming of one's person". The word "toiletry" is explained in the said dictionary as meaning "an article -or preparation used in making one's toilet such as soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth paste, shaving cream, cologne etc. According to the dictionary meaning tooth powder is regarded both as an item of cosmetic and toilet: but as observed by this Court in Bamavatar Budhaiprasad v. The Asstt. Sales Tax Officer, Akola and another(1), the names of articles, the sales and purchases of which are liable to be taxed given in a statute unless defined in the statute must be construed not in a technical sense but as understood in common parlance. Therein this Court was called '-upon to consider whether 'betel leaves' could be considered as 'vegetable' under item No. 6 of Schedule II of the C. P. Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. In that case this Court observed that the word 'vegetable' had not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use, (1) 12, S. T. C. 286;
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 334 - J L Kapur - Full Document

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

The question whether tooth powder can be considered as a toilet came up before the Madras High Court in V. P. Sanasundara Mudaliar v. State of Madras(') and before the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vicco Laboratories(2). Both the courts took the view that the tooth powder is a toilet. The same view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court. We are in agreement with that view In the result these appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs-hearing fee one set.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

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

The question whether tooth powder can be considered as a toilet came up before the Madras High Court in V. P. Sanasundara Mudaliar v. State of Madras(') and before the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vicco Laboratories(2). Both the courts took the view that the tooth powder is a toilet. The same view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court. We are in agreement with that view In the result these appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs-hearing fee one set.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1