STATE OF GUJARAT versus PRAKASH TRADING CO. AHMEDABAD

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 22-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

918 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
PRAliSH TRADING CO. AHMEDABAD 
August 22, 1972 
[K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHA:-iNA, JJ.] 
Bombay Salet Tax Act, (51 of 1959) as amended by Guiarat Act 
25 of 1962, Sch. c. entry 28 and Sch. E, entry 21A-Liquid soap, tooth 
paste and tooth brUih whether toilet articles, 
&trv 28 Df Schedule C Df the BDmbav Sales Tax Act, 1959, 
as 
amended by· the Gujarat Act, 1962, pertains to soaps. Entry 21A of 
Sclhedule E deals with toilet articles exclo.:ding soap as specified in Entry 
28 in Schedule C, and Entry 22 of Schedule E is a residuary entry relat-
ing to all goods otht: !han those specified from time to time in the 
Schedules and in the precedjng entries. 
On a reference under s. 61 of the Act, the High Court held that 
Colgate tooth past.e and Colgate tooth brush were not toilet articles falling 
under Entrv 21A but were covered by the residuary Entry 22; and that 
Palmolive Shampoo was soap within the meaning of Entry 28 of Sche-
dule C. 
In appeal to thia Court, 
HELD : ( 1) Colgate tooth paste and brush are toilet articles und,er 
Entrr 21A, Sch. E. 
(a) In Sarin Chemical Laboratorv v .. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
U.P. (1970) 26 S.T.C. 339 (SC), this Court came to the conclusion 
E 
that tooth powder was a toilet requisite. 
Moreover, this 
Court 
bv 
approving in Sarin Chemical Laboratory Case the 
decision 
of 
the 
Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vicco Laboratories 
(1968) 22 S.T.C. 169, approved the view that for the 
purpose 
of 
Bombay s..Ies-Tax Act also dental powder is a toilet article. The rea-
soning given by this Court in respect of tooth powder in Sarin Chemical 
Laboratory's case holds equally good for tooth paste: ~920F; 921D-F] 
(b) The dictionary meaning of the word 'toilet' as "an act or pro-
cess of cleansing one's person" shows that a tooth brush, which is meant 
for cleanoing one'• teeth, is also a toilet article. If a tooth brush is in 
fact used for cleansing one's teeth it must be held to be an article of 
toilet even though teeth may. also be cleansed without the use of a tooth 
brush. Ii920G-H; 921F-OJ 
(2) Shampoo is a kind of liquid soap. It has all the ingredients of a 
soap though the proportion of ingredient differs from those of a soap in 
the form of a cake. But that fact would not alter the basic character 
of shampoo and take it out of the category of soaps. The High Court 
was therefore right in holding that the Shampoo falls under Entry 28, 
Schedule C, I922C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 37-of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order da~ed 
July 3, !968 of the Gujarat High Court in Sales Tax Reference 
No. 3 of 1967. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
.j 
G 
H 
i}UJARAT v. PRA1'ASH TRADING co. (Khanna, I.) 
919 
M. C. Bhandare and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
M. C. Chagla and /. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
• 
The Judgment of the Court w~, delivered by 
JAmnna, J, This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment of Gujarat High Court in a reference _made to it 
under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 19~9 (Bombay 
Act 51 of 1959) as ainended by the Bombay Sales Tax (Gujarat 
Amendment) Act, 1962 (Gujarat Act 25 of 1962) (hereinafter 
referred to as the Act) . 
The respondent made an application tmder section 52 of the. 
Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination 
of the rate of tax payable on sale of five articles, 
including 
Palmolive shampoo, large size, Colgate tooth paste, giant size 
and Colgate tooth birush 
for adult use. It was urged by the 
respondent before the· Deputy 
Commissioner that 
Palmolive 
shampoo was a kind of liquid soap and was covered by entry 
28 of sched.ule C to the Act. 
As regards Colgate dental paste 
and Colgate tooth brush, the respondent submit1ied that those 
were articles meant for cleansing teeth and were not toilet arti-
cles. 
These contentions were repelled by the Deputy Commis-
sioner, who held that the aforesaid three articles were toilet arti-
cles within the meaning of entry 21A of schedule E to the Act 
and liable to tax accordingly. 
The Gujarat Sales Tax· Tribunal 
on appeal took the same view. as had been taken by the Deputy 
Commissioner. 
On 
application filed by the respondent, 
the 
following two questions were referred by the Tribunal to 
the 
High Court: 
"I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances 
of the case Palmolive Shampoo 
(Large Size) 
sold under Bill No. 505 dated 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.