ROOPKALA INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Sales Tax deciding an application made by the appellants under section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, The appellants sold to Messrs. Mulchand & Sons on 19th June, 1954, certain quantities of their talcum powders under the names "Roopkala Bouquet", "Roopkala Ordinary" and "Roopkala Medium." They contended that these powders should be taxed under entry 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as toilet articles, and not under entry 66 as cosmetics. These two entries are reproduced below :- "Entry 39 : Toilet articles except such articles as may be specified by State Government by notification in the Official Gazette" - (Sales tax half anna in the rupee). "Entry 66 : Perfumes, depilatories and cosmetics (except hair oils)" - (Sales tax one anna in the rupee). The Collector of Sales Tax has held that the articles in question were cosmetics, and, therefore, liable to tax under entry 66.

(2.) THE question that arises in this case is what meanings, are to be given to the expressions "toilet articles" and "cosmetics" used respectively in entries 39 and 66. Mr. B. C. Joshi for the appellants has contended that as cosmetics were taxed at higher rates they must be regarded as luxury articles, while the articles sold by his clients are ordinary articles of toilet, and that if it be held that they are cosmetics, they should also be held to be toilet articles. He contended that toilet articles are specific instances of cosmetics, and that, therefore, the provision relating to toilet articles should apply. Mr. K. A. Kabe for the respondent has sought to support the order of the Collector by referring to the grounds of appeal of the appellants in which it has been stated, "your petitioners are small dealers dealing in face powders commonly called as toilet powders." THE appellants thus, it is argued, have admitted that the powders in question are face powders. It has been admitted by Mr. Joshi that the powders sold in the three varieties are almost similar in composition and that they should all be treated similarly. THEre being no definition of the word "cosmetic" in the Act or elsewhere, and there being no English or Indian decisions on the point. Mr. Kabe has drawn our attention to the definition of the word "cosmetic" in several American publications and authorities. Those publications and authorities are referred to below. A product called "Protex" was also shown to us. It is manufactured by the Colgate-Palmolive Co. and called an all-purpose toilet powder for after-bath, for the body, for hot weather comfort and as a face powder. Thus the same powder can be used on the body after bath, etc., and also as face powder. It not being shown that the powders in question cannot be used as face powders, Mr. Kabe has contended that face powders being clearly cosmetics, these powders must be regarded as falling under entry 66.