1970 (4) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r cent. under item No. 32 of the same notification?" The dispute arises in respect of the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee deals in several commodities including Tinopal. The assessing authority held that Tinopal was a chemical taxable at 7 per cent. The Judge (Revisions), however, reversed the finding. According to him, Tinopal was a washing material taxable at 4 per cent. A similar question arose before a Bench of this court in M/s. Har Narain Purshottam Dass Colour Co., Sadhwara Street, Farrukhabad v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow[1971] 28 S.T.C. 77. (S.T.R. No. 614 of 1965, decided on 11th February, 1969). It was held that for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, Tinopal was a chemical liable to tax as a c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e used as washing material, and the mere circumstance that it is possible to distinguish Tinopal as washing material cannot take it out of the category of "chemicals of all kinds". On this finding he held that Tinopal fell within the entry of "chemicals of all kinds" in the notification dated 31st March, 1956. Gulati, J., observed that Tinopal is an article of everyday use, its main use being in the laundry. In the popular sense it is a washing material. It is described by its manufacturer as a whitening agent, but whitening is also one of the main purposes of washing clothes. The fact that the whitening brought about by Tinopal is a chemical process is of no consequence because that is not the criterion upon which entries in the notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, in their commercial sense. The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola[1961] 12 S.T.C. 286 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1325. In that case section 6 of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, provided that articles mentioned in the Schedule were exempt from sales tax and articles not mentioned were taxable. Item No. 6 of the Schedule stated "vegetables" and item No. 36 stated "betel leaves". Subsequently item No. 36 was deleted by an amendment of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the use of two distinct and different items, i.e., "vegetables" and "betel leaves" and the subsequent removal of betel leaves from t....