State of Gujarat v. Prakash Trading Co. Ahmedabad
M. C. Chagla and /. N. Shroff, for the respondent. •
The Judgment of the Court w~, delivered by
JAmnna, J, This appeal by special leave is directed against
the judgment of Gujarat High Court in a reference _made to it
under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 19~9 (Bombay
Act 51 of 1959) as ainended by the Bombay Sales Tax (Gujarat
Amendment) Act, 1962 (Gujarat Act 25 of 1962) (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) .
The respondent made an application tmder section 52 of the.
Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination
of the rate of tax payable on sale of five articles, including
Palmolive shampoo, large size, Colgate tooth paste, giant size
and Colgate tooth birush for adult use. It was urged by the
respondent before the· Deputy Commissioner that Palmolive
shampoo was a kind of liquid soap and was covered by entry
28 of sched.ule C to the Act. As regards Colgate dental paste
and Colgate tooth brush, the respondent submit1ied that those
were articles meant for cleansing teeth and were not toilet arti
cles. These contentions were repelled by the Deputy Commis
sioner, who held that the aforesaid three articles were toilet arti
cles within the meaning of entry 21A of schedule E to the Act
and liable to tax accordingly. The Gujarat Sales Tax· Tribunal
on appeal took the same view. as had been taken by the Deputy
Commissioner. On application filed by the respondent, the
following two questions were referred by the Tribunal to the
High Court:
"I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case Palmolive Shampoo (Large Size)
sold under Bill No. 505 dated July 15, 1964 is
a toilet article within the meaning of Entry 21A
of ·Schedule E or iS soap within the meaning of
Entry 28 of Schedule C or is covered by Entry
22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act,
1959 and liable to tax accordingly.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case (I) ColP:ate Tooth Paste and (2) Col
gate Tooth Brush sold under Bill No. 505 dated
July 15, 1964 are toilet articles within the mean
incr of Entry 21A of Schedule E or are covered
by Entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales
Tax Act 1959 and liable to tax accordingly". '
The answer of the. High Court on the first question was that
Palmolive shompoo was not a toilet article within the meaning
of entry 21 A of schedule. E to the Act but w~s soap within the
meaning of entry. 28 of schedule C and was liable to \Je taxed
accordingly. As r·:gards question No. 2, the answer of the High
Court was that Colgate tooth brush and Colgate tooth paste
were not toilet articles falling in entry 21 A of sche<lule E but
were covered by the residuary entry 22 of schedule E and were
liable to \Je taxed accordingly.
In appeal in this Court Mr. Bhandare on ljehalf of the ap
pellant has argued . that all the three articles in question,
namely, Palmolive shampoo, Colgate 'tooth paste and CoJg·ate
tooth brush are toilet articles as mentioned in entry 21A of
schedule E to the Act. As against that Mr. Chagla on behalf
of the respondent has canvassed for the correctness of the view
ot the High Court.
We may at this stage refer •to the three entries with which w~
are concerned. Entry 28 of schedule C to the Act pertains to
soaps. Entry 21 A of schedule E to the Act deals with the fol
lowing goods :
2 I A. Toilet articles including hair cream and hair
tonic; and perfumes, depilatories and cosmetics (ex
cept. soap as specified in entry 28 in schedule C and
hair oil as specified in entry 7 of this schedule)."
Entry 22 is a residuary entry and relates to "all goods other than
those specified from time to time in schedules A, B, C and D in
the preceding entries."
So far as Colgate tooth paste is concerned, we find that the
matter is concluded by a decision of this Court in tile case of
Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commi~sioner of Sales Tax,
U .P. ( 1). It was held in that case that tooth powder is a toilet
requisite and was liable to sales tax d!; such. Reference in this
connection was made to the · dictionary meaning of the words
"cosmetic", "toilet" and "toiletry". "Cosmetic", according to
Webster's International Dictionary, is "a preparation to beautify
· or alter appearance of the body or for cleansing, colouring, con
ditioning or protecting skin, hair, nails, eyes or teeth". Th~ same
disctionary gives the meani.ng of the expression "toilet" as "an
act or process of dressing, especially formerly of dressin" hair and
now usually cleansing· and grooming of one's person". ?'Toiletry"
according to the dictionary, is "an article or preparation used
in making one·s toilet such as soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth-paste,
(I) [1970] 26 S.T.C. 339.
II
GUJARAT v. PRAKASH TRADING co. (Khanna, J.) 921
shaving cream, cologne etc." It was further observed by this
Court that according to the dictionary meaning, tooth powder
was regarded both as an item of cosmetic and toilet and that
in commo.n parlance, tooth powder was considered to be an arti
cle of toilet. As such, the Court came to the conclusion that
tooth powder was a toilet requisite. The reasoning given by this
Court in respect of tooth powder in the above cited case, in our
opinion, holds equally good for tooth paste. Likewise, 1he dic
tiQilary meaning of the word "toilet" relied upon in the above
case "as an act or process of cleansing of orie's person" shows
that a tooth brush which is meant for cleansing one's teeth is a
toilet article.
Jv!r. Chagla has tried to distinguish the case of Sarin Chemi
cal Laboratory (supra) o.n the ground •that that was a case uncler
the U.P. Sales Tax Act, while we are dealing with a case under
the Bombay Sales Tax Act. This submission is clearly untenable,
because we are concerned with the concept of a toilet article as
understood in common parla.nce. Nei•ther the Bombay Sales Tax
Act nor the U.P. Sales Tax Act contained any special definition
of the toilet articles and, as such, the reasoning in the case of
Sarin Chemical Laboratory (supra) cannot be held to relate only
to cases under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Apart from that, we find
that in the case of Sarin Chemical Laborator,v (supra) this Court
approved of the decision of the Bombay Higl:t Court in Com
missioner of Sales Tax v. Vicco Laboratories (l), In the last
mentioned case it was held by the Bombay High Court that Vicco
Va jradanti dentifrice in the form of a powder used for Cleansing
teeth was a toilet article. It would, therefore, follow that this ·
Court has set its seal of approval on the view that for the Bom
bay Sales Tax Act also, dental powder used for cleansing of
tooth is a toilet article.
We are also unable to accede to the submission of Mr. Chagla
that as tooth can also 'be cleansed without the use of tooth brush,
the same is not a toilet article. The question with which we are
cencerned is not whether the use of tooth brush can be dispensed
with, but whether it is actually used for the· purpo5e of cleansing
one's teeth. If the .tooth brush is, ~n fact, used for cleansing
one's teeth, the same must be held to be an article of toilet.
The view taken by the High Court regardir.g shampoo that
it constitutes soap, in our opinio.n, is well founded. The High
Court in this respect has referred to the following p_assage in the
Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology;
". . The soaps used for sbampooing the hair are
essentially the same as those described under "soap".
(IJ [1968] 22 S.L.C. 169
92!'1 SUPllEME COURT llEPOllTS [1973] 1 S.C.ll.
See Cosmetics Vol. 6 P. 550 soap). They are avail
able in several forms; bar, cil:e, liquid, powder (or
granulles) and jolly. Although there will undoubted
ly always be numbers of individuals who will wash
their hair with any cake of soap that may be at hand,
the prepared liquid shampoos have rapidly risen to
first place in the retail trade. The bars and cakes are
shoved down, tli'e granules are dissolved and the jollies
are diluted, tq prepare liquid shampoo of the desired
concentration ' ... "
The High Court concluded from the above .that Palmolive
sham pod was soap covered by entry 2 8 of schedule C to the Act.
We agree with the High Court in this respect and are of the
opinion that shampoo is a kind of liquid soap. It has all the
essential ingredients o.f a soap. It may be that the proportion of
the ingredients of the liquid soap differ from those of a soap in
the form of a cake but that fact would not alter the basic
character of shampoo and take it out of the category of soaps.
As a result of the above, we partly accept the appeal and
set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it relates
to tooth paste and tooth brush. Both of them, in our opinion,
are toilet articles within the meaning of entry 21A of schedule
E to the Act. We, however, uphold the judgment of the High
Court in so far as the High Court has held that shampoo is
soap within the meaning of entry 28 of schedule C to the Act.
In view of the partial success of each party, we leave the parties
to bear their own costs of this Court as well as in the 'Iigh Court.
V.P.S. A'ppeal pal"fl)' allowed