Common parlance classification of sanitary napkins as toilet articles, with reassessment notice held within limitation.

Reassessment notices under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 are not time-barred if issued within the statutory five-year period from the relevant assessment year, and the notice in question was therefore valid. For classification, where the fiscal statute gives no definition, the commercial identity of goods is determined by common parlance and primary use. Sanitary napkins were not medicine or cosmetics because they are not used for diagnosis, treatment, prevention of disease, or beautification; they were treated as toilet articles on the basis of their personal hygiene function. For the later assessment year, the operative notification displaced the earlier toilet-article entry, so the goods fell under the residuary entry rather than as cosmetics.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice for reassessment was barred by limitation under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. (ii) Whether sanitary napkins were taxable as medicine, cosmetic article, toilet article, or under the residuary entry, and the consequent tax treatment for the relevant assessment years.

Issue (i): Whether the notice for reassessment was barred by limitation under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The limitation question turned on the accounting period for assessment year 1987-88 and the statutory period within which notice under the reassessment provision could be issued. The notice was issued within five years from the relevant assessment year, and therefore within the statutory time limit.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue. The reassessment notice was not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether sanitary napkins were taxable as medicine, cosmetic article, toilet article, or under the residuary entry, and the consequent tax treatment for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: In the absence of statutory definitions, the classification had to be determined by common parlance and primary use. Sanitary napkins were not regarded in trade or by consumers as medicine, because they were not used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease. They were also not cosmetics, as they were not intended to beautify or adorn the body. Their function was connected with personal hygiene and cleansing, which brought them within the broader category of toilet articles. For the later assessment year, the relevant notification scheme had superseded the earlier entry for toilet articles, with the result that such goods fell in the residuary entry and not as cosmetics.

Conclusion: In favour of Assessee. Sanitary napkins were held to be toilet articles and not medicine or cosmetics, and for the relevant later assessment year the assessment as a cosmetic article could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The limitation challenge failed, but the classification issue succeeded for the later assessment year, resulting in partial relief to the assessee and modification of the assessments accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute does not define the relevant commercial description of goods, classification depends on common parlance and primary use; if an article is not understood as medicine or cosmetic, it may still fall within toilet articles, with tax liability then determined by the operative notification or residuary entry.

---