LAWS(MAD)-1978-1-11

A BOAKE ROBERTS AND COMPANY INDIA LIMITED [NOW BUSH BOAKE ALLEN INDIA LIMITED ] Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE COMMERCIAL TAXES CHEPAUK MADRAS 5

Decided On January 06, 1978
A.BOAKE ROBERTS AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES), CHEPAUK, MADRAS-5 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals raise a common question. They relate to the same assessee. The years of assessment are respectively 1964-65, 1968-69, 1965-66 and 1967-68. The question turns on the interpretation to be placed on item 51 in the First Schedule of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood at the relevant time, pertaining to the assessment years with which we are concerned. We shall extract item 51 :

(2.) IT was felt that it was necessary to amend item 51 as it stood in those terms which we have just now mentioned because of two reasons. IT was represented that the scents and perfumes used in the preparation of scented sticks were twice taxed, once as scents and then as scented sticks later on, when the scent was utilised for manufacturing scented sticks. IT was also represented that toilet requisites mentioned in term 51 was a vague expression and the scope of the expression was not very clear. As a result of these representations, scented sticks and toilet requisites and naturally the excepted soaps were omitted and item 51 extracted at the beginning of this judgment, with which we are concerned, has come into existence. In order to make the legislative history complete, we may refer to the fact that there has been a further amendment effected and item 51 now in the statute reads as follows :

(3.) WE do not wish to express any final opinion on this matter, whether the Supreme Court overruled the decision in Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v. State of Madras because that question does not really arise for decision. It is a well-known principle of law that if there are enumerated items in an entry and it is followed by a general expression of other items or words like "toilet requisites", the rule of ejusdem generis will apply and toilet requisites will have to be construed or "other items" will have to be construed as being of the same nature as the items mentioned earlier provided it is possible to inter from the specified items a genesis which can be projected on to other unspecified items. Equally well-established is another principle that when we are to construe particular words in an entry like the entry in item 51 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, it is not as though we must take any particular item, find out its dictionary meaning or the meanings attributable to that particular item and disregard the effect on that item arising from the association with other items and the limitation or expansion of the meaning of that item by such association. These are principles too well-established to need quoting any authority.Now turning to the authorities of this court we find that in the decision reported in Prakash Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu the view was taken that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. the principle of the decision in Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v. State of Madras cannot be applied and whatever be the position arising out of the decision of this court in Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v. State of Madras in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. it has to be held that jasmine essence is a perfume within the meaning of entry 51 of the First Schedule of the Act. Jasmine essence therein was utilised for the purpose of manufacture of scented sticks. It was not argued before the court that scents and perfumes were not the only words used in entry 51 of the First Schedule or that, because there are other expressions used in item 51, scents and perfumes must be given a limited meaning and that, therefore, the jasmine essence which is not used as such for toilet purposes by human beings should not be construed to be articles falling under entry 51 of the First Schedule. Why we are referring to this aspect is that the separate categories of goods that can be considered as pertaining to toilets can be divided generally under three main heads.