ABHYANKAR, J. - This reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax concerns the following question referred to us by the Tribunal :-

"Whether on a true and proper interpretation of entry No. 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Vicco Vajradanti (tooth-powder) sold by the respondents is not 'toilet article' falling under the said entry ?"

The respondents are manufacturers of a dentifrice in the form of a powder used for cleaning teeth. It sells in the trade name of Vicco Vajradanti. It does not seem to be disputed that such a powder is used for cleaning teeth. In respect of the turnover of sales of this powder the Sales Tax Officer classified this as falling in the residuary entry No. 80 in Schedule B of the 1953 Act and charged sales tax accordingly. It was confirmed in appeal at the instance of the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, however, in exercise of his revisional powers suo motu revised the order so far as the finding of the Sales Tax Officer about the correct entry in the Schedule being applicable to this powder was concerned. So far as the payment of the tax was concerned, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that this dental powder would more properly be included among toilet articles in entry No. 39 of Schedule B and ought to be charged at the rate specified in this entry.

Against this order, the respondents preferred a revision before the Tribunal contending that the dental power was not a toilet article and this contention was accepted by the Tribunal and it restored the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Tribunal has now referred the above question to us. In reversing the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal purported to follow a decision of the Madras High Court in V. P. Somasundara Mudaliar v. The State of Madras ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 943.) in which the Court has held that tooth-powder would not be included in entry 51 of the Madras Act, which entry was as follows :

"Scents and perfumes, powders, snows, scented hair-oils, scented sticks, cosmetics and toilet requisites, except soaps."

The Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondents that this was a medicinal preparation, but the Tribunal took the view that the idea of toilet is to render the outward personality of a person attractive and properly groomed up and for this purpose beautiful and sparkling teeth will no doubt be an added advantage. But the hygiene of the teeth is the most essential requirement for the health of every human being, whether conscious of his personality or not, whether desiring to impress people with his personality or not. Every person must use dentifrice in one form or the other to maintain hygiene of his teeth, and therefore it cannot be said that it is an aid for maintaining outward beauty of the personality. The Tribunal also referred to the notification of the Government under which certain articles were excluded from entry No. 39 such as agarbatties and udbatties, incense, oils for use in toilet except perfumed oils and combs other than those intended for being worn in the hair. Relying upon this notification the Tribunal applied the principle of ejusdem generis to come to a conclusion that tooth-powder will not answer the description of any of these excluded articles.

The view taken by the Tribunal is supported in this Court on behalf of the respondents more or less on the same line of reasoning. It is contended that toilet articles are principally concerned with a process of beautifying the exterior of a person, whereas the essential purpose of using a dentifrice or dental powder is hygienic and it cannot be said that in cleaning one's teeth by a tooth-powder or dentifrice anybody is attempting to add beauty to his face or his personality. It is an essential thing to be done by anybody who wants to live in good health, and, therefore, dental powder or dentifrice cannot be included in toilet artic