SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Bom) 31

VIMADALAL, N.L.ABHYANKAR
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX – Appellant
Versus
VICCO LABORATORIES – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H. D. Banaji, for the applicant.
S. P. Mehta with V. H. Patil, for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

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 conc










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top