Departmental circulars cannot override tax statutes; hair-oil was held to fall within cosmetics under the sales tax entry.

Departmental circulars issued without statutory authority cannot alter tax liability, bind sales tax authorities, or operate retrospectively to prevent revision of assessments; the text states they cannot override the charging and schedule provisions of the statute. Hair-oil is treated as a cosmetic under entry 17 of the First Schedule because the term was construed in its ordinary and commercial sense to include articles that beautify, protect, or improve hair. On that construction, the higher rate of tax was upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether departmental circulars, issued without statutory authority, could bind the sales tax authorities or operate retrospectively to prevent revision of tax; and (ii) whether hair-oil falls within the expression "cosmetics" in entry 17 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Issue (i): Whether departmental circulars, issued without statutory authority, could bind the sales tax authorities or operate retrospectively to prevent revision of tax.

Analysis: The Act contained no provision comparable to section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, authorising binding instructions or circulars. In the absence of statutory power, departmental directions could not alter the legal incidence of tax, create an estoppel against the statute, or prevent the authorities from applying the correct rate under the Act. Beneficial circulars could not override the charging and schedule provisions, nor could they operate retrospectively to defeat the statute.

Conclusion: The circulars were not binding and could not bar revision of the assessments; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether hair-oil falls within the expression "cosmetics" in entry 17 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The expression "cosmetics" was construed in its ordinary and commercial sense. The term was held to be wide enough to include articles intended to beautify, adorn, protect, or improve the hair, skin, or body. Hair-oil serves not only to beautify hair but also to preserve and groom it, and therefore answers the description of a cosmetic. The distinction suggested between "cosmetics" and "toilet articles" was rejected, as the statutory entry did not use the term "toilet" and the exclusion of soap showed that the word "cosmetics" was being used broadly.

Conclusion: Hair-oil is a cosmetic within entry 17, and tax at the higher rate was correctly levied; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revised tax treatment failed, and the assessments were upheld with no interference in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of statutory authority, departmental circulars cannot override the taxing statute or operate retrospectively, and a commodity used for beautifying and preserving hair falls within "cosmetics" when that expression is used in its ordinary and commercial sense.

---