IMPORTANT POINT
Where some articles are grouped together in the Entries in Sales Tax and Excise Statutes, each word in the Entry draws colour from other words therein.

ORDER

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.

2. The appellant is a registered dealer in dhoop and aggarbatti and we 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.

3. Entry No. 16 of Schedule A to the said Act at the relevant time read thus:

"Cosmetics, perfumery an toilet goods, excluding tooth-paste, tooth-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, kum kum and soap.

16A. Perfumery including dhoop and Aggarbatti."

4. The appellant was sought to be made liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 10 paisa in a rupee, as was leviable upon times falling under the said Entry No. 16, on the basis that dhoop and aggarbatti were covered by the word "perfumery" therein. The writ petition filed by the appellant thereagainst 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. v. Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co.1.

5. 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 tatha sugandhian" in Hindi. The question was whether "dhoop or "dhoopbatti" fell within the description of "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 ordinary sense and "dhoop" and "dhoopbatti", therefore, fell within that word.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant commended for our acceptance the reasoning of a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay in the judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Gordhandas Tokersey2. The question here was whether sandalwood and sandalwood oil were perfumes that fell within the entry "perfumes, depilatories and cosmetics". The Bombay High Court noted that it was a well-known rule of construction that words in such entries had to be construed with reference to the words found in immediate connection with them. When two or more words which were capable of being understood in an analogous manner were coupled together, they had to be understood in the common analogous sense and not in the general sense. Applying this rule of noscitur a sociis, the word "perfumes" in the entry was to be understood in conjunction with `cosmetics and `depilatories . In other words, the word "perfumes" referred only to such preparations as were commonly known in the market for use on the human body as perfumes. The Bombay High Court drew support from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Boak Roberts & Co. (India) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue (C.T.), Madras3, where a similar view had been taken. The Bombay High Court also drew support from the case of Assessing Authority v. Amir Chand Om Parkash4, in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier construed the very same Entry No. 16 which is now before us and held that `dhoop and `aggarbatti could not be held to be `perfumery within the meaning of that entry. The Bombay High Court distinguished the judgment o