TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing contrary to the evidence produced in the case and contrary to the principles of natural justice? (2) If answer to the above question is in the negative, i.e., against the applicant, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that 'detergent' is not one kind of soap and hence not covered under entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, but covered under entry 13 of Schedule III thereof?" 2.. The aforesaid questions arise in the following factual background: (i) The applicant Messrs. Haran D. Manufacturing Co. is a partnership firm and a dealer registered under the Act, engaged in manufacture and sale of soaps. While assessing the applicant for samv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing before him with the requisite accounting materials. The applicant appeared with the requisite materials. It was found that in so far as the period of samvat year 2032 was concerned, consumption of oil and fatty acids taken together was of 5,462 kilograms out of the total consumption of different raw materials weighing 4,95,979 kilograms. In samvat year 2033 the consumption of oil was found to be nil; while that of fatty acid was 280 kilograms only, out of the total consumption of the raw materials weighing 4,65,507 kilograms. On perusal of the account books and the sale bills as well as the advertisement published by the applicant, the Assistant Commissioner was prima facie of the view that what was sold by the applicant during the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the applicant was labouring under a bona fide belief that what was sold by it was "soap" and it paid the tax accordingly. (v) The applicant thereafter filed two different applications numbering 30 and 31 of 1988 for referring the aforesaid two questions for the decision of this Court. The Tribunal held that these questions were questions of law which deserved reference to the High Court. 3.. It cannot be ignored that entry No. 34 of Schedule II, Part A was specifically amended with effect from August 1, 1977, to bring within its purview "detergent" also, in order to set at rest the controversy and the meaning of the term "soap". This amendment cannot be the basis for a submission that "detergents" were not included in the term "soap"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ler was known as soap in popular parlance and by the trading community. He, therefore, submitted that the real test for determining whether the product of the applicant is "soap" does not involve the comparison and determination of the ingredients of the product, but the predominant use to which it is put by the consumers. He further submitted that the entry itself was amended in order to include such products within the fold of "soaps" with effect from August 1, 1977, which also reflected the intention of the Legislature. 5.. As against this, it was vehemently submitted by Mr. Y.F. Mehta for the State that the raw materials used by the manufacturer in samvat year 2033 totally weighing 4,65,507 kilograms included fatty acid weighing only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tannica as a chemical compound or mixture of chemical compounds resulting from interaction of fatty oils and fats with alkali, i.e., the salts of fatty acids, functionally, it is understood as a substance possessing the characteristic "soap-like" properties of sudsing, detergency, surface tension, lowering, wetting and emulsifying power, and curd and gel formation. It is also mentioned in this note regarding "soap" that functional consideration of soap brings within its scope synthetic detergents. 7.. In C.C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 STC 133 the Bombay High Court held that the product sold in the market as Badshahi soap was not really a soap under the relevant entry of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 and that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. 10.. In Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1989] 72 STC 280; AIR 1988 SC 2223, the Supreme Court reiterated the same test and held that where no definition is provided in the statute itself, for ascertaining the correct meaning of a fiscal entry, reference to a dictionary meaning is not always safe, and so the correct guide in such a test would be the context and the trade meaning. It was also observed that where a particular word has a scientific or technical meaning and also an ordinary meaning according to the common parlance, it is in the latter sense that in a taxing statute the word must be held to have....