Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, .U.P

b~' Hegde, J. These are connected appeals by special leave. The only question raised in these appeals is whether ·sarin Tooth Pow­ der' manufactured by M; s. Sarin Chemicals Laboratory is .. cos· metic" or a ''toilet requisite .. as held by the High Court of Allalu bad or it is an unspecified commodity liable to sales tax at all points of sale as held by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agr~. The contention of M/ s. Sarin Chemical Laboratory who is the appellant in all the appeab is that the turn-over relating .to the sales of tooth powder is liable to be taxed at the rate of 3 pies per rupee under s. 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (to be hereinafter re· ferred to as the Act) whereas Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. contends that the said turn over is liable to be taxed at single poi11t under s. 3(A) of that Act read with Entry 6 of the notification No. 905/X dated March 31, 1956. The High Court has accepted the contention of the Commissioner. In these appeals the assess.:e challenges the conclusion reached by the High Court and supports the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax. Agra, whp held that the tooth powder is an unspecified commodity liable to tax under s. 3 of the Act. 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 prepara­ tion to beautify or alter appearance of the body or for cleansing, colouring, conditioning or protecting skin. hair. nails, eyes or teeth". The same dictionary gives the meaning of the exµression "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, cologue 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, Ako/a 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 under­ stood 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 u,e, (I) 12, S. T. C. 286; SARlN LABORATORY v. c.~,.T. (Hegde , J.) 733 A it must be construed fn a popular sense meaning "that sense wbich people co'i'Ner~ant with the subject matter with which statlite is deali,ng would. attribute tq it:' Applyi_ng that te.st this Cour7ruled ;h~lt betel leaves cannot be. con~idered as 'vegetable' . • In common parlance a tooth po,vder is .considered as a toilet. That meaning .:!ccords with the di7tionary meaning as well. Th~ question whether tooth powder can be considered as a t ~"l i let came up beTore the Maarbs High Court in V. P. Sanasundara ftfllda!iar' v. S1a1e of Madrase) and before the Bombay High C\.1urt .in; Coe11uissioner of Sd/es Tax v. Vicco Laboratories(2). " . Both the ~oi1rts took the view that the tooth powdei: is a toilet. Th.~ ~ame vie\y has l;>een. taken by the Allahabad High Court. We C t1re Lh7a$~eement with).hat view / T \, ,..n..,the res.ult these appeals ff!il af1d. t~~Y... . are ,dimiss'ed with costs-hearing fee one s~t . . Y.P. (I) 14, S. T. C. 943.1. (2) 22. S. T. C. 169. Appeals dismissed.