PARDEEP AGGARBATTI, LUDHIANA ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 23-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PARDEEP AGGARBATTI, LUDHIANA ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 23, 1997 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 : 
Schedule A-Entry 16-Scope of-Appellant a registered dealer of 
C 'Dhoop' and 'Aggarbatti '-Assessment to sales tax-Levy of sales tax on the 
basis that 'Dhoop' and 'Aggarbatti' were covered by· 'perfumery '-Writ 
challenging the levy allowed by a single Judge of the High Court-On 
appeal Division Bench reversed the decision of single Judge-Appeal before 
Supreme Court-Held the word "perfumery" in Entry No. 16 draws colour 
D from the words 'cosmetics' and 'toilet goods' therein-So read, the word 
'perfumery' in the said Entry can only refer to such articles of perfamery as 
are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are, upon the person-The word 
''perfumery" in the context in which it is used has, therefore, no application 
to .'dhoop' and 'aggarbatti'. 
E 
Sales Tax and Excise statute-Entries-Interpretation of-When Entries 
are grouped together, each word in the Entry draws colour from the other 
words therein-Principle of noscitur a sociis. 
Words and Phrases : 
F 
'Perfumery'-Meaning of 
Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP. v. lndian Herbs Research and Supply 
Co., 25 STC 151, distinguished. 
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Gordhandas 
G Tokersey, 52 STC 381 and Boak Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Board of 
Revenue (C.T.) Madras, [1942) STC 370, referred to. 
H 
Assessing Authority v. Amir Chand Om Parkash, 33 STC 120, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1175of1992. 
692 
PARDEEP AGGARBATTI v. STATE 
693 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.92 of the Punjab & Haryana A 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 644 of 1984. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1176/92, 1177/92, I 178/92, I 179/92. 
S.K. Sinha and R.C. Kohli for the Appellants. 
R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C.A. No.1175 of 1992. 
The Judgment and order under appeal by special leave was delivered 
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It reversed 
the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition 
filed by the appellant. 
B 
c 
The appellant is a registered dealer in 'dhoop' and 'aggarbati' and we D 
are concerned with its assessment to sales tax thereon under the provisions 
of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 for the period 1973-74. 
Entry No. 16 of Schedule A to the said Act at the relevant time read 
thus : 
"Cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding tooth-paste, tooth-
E 
powder, kum-kum and soap." 
The said Entry No. 16 was broken up into Entries 16 and 16A by a notification 
dated 28th September, 1979. The new Entries read thus : 
"16. Cosmetics, and toilet goods excluding tooth-paste, tooth-powder, F 
kum kum and soap. 
16A. Perfumery including dhoop and Aggarbati." 
The appellant was sought to be made liable to pay sales tax at the rate 
of I 0 paisa in a rupee, as was leviable upon items falling under the said Entry G 
No. 16, on the basis that 'dhoop' and 'aggarbati' were covered by the word 
"perfumery" therein. The writ petition filed by the appellant there against was 
allowed by the learned Single Judge, who placed reliance upon the context 
in which the word "perfumery" was used in the said Entry No. 16. The 
Division Bench, in appeal, reversed the learned Single Judge, principally 
relying upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. H 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A v. Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co., 25 STC 151. 
In the case of Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co., strongly relied 
upon by learned counsel for the respondents, the relevant Entry read : 
"Scents and Perfumes" in English and "Itra Latha Sugandhian" in Hindi. The 
question was whether "dhoop" or "dhoopbatti." fell within the description of 
B "perfume" thereunder. This Court, took the view that there was no warrant 
for restricting the meaning of the expression "perfume" to substances which 
emitted a fragrance in their natural state and not extending it to those which 
produced a fragrance as a result of the application of heat or some foreign 
matter to induce a chemical reaction which resulted in the odour being released. 
The word "perfumes" in that entry, it was held, should be construed in its 
C ordinary sense and "dhoop" and "dhoopbatti", therefore, fell within that 
word. 
Learned counsel for the appellant commended for our ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.