The judgment of the Court was delivered by

MANCHANDA, J. - This is a case stated under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The question referred is -

"That 'dhoop or dhoop-batti' does not come under the category of 'perfume' and is not liable to tax under item No. 37 of Notification. 905/X dated 31st March, 1956, under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act."

The material facts lie within a narrow compass and are these : The assesses are manufactures of and dealers in dhoop-batti and they also deal in indigenous medicines at Dehra Dun. The return filed was not accepted and the turnover including that of sale of dhoop was estimated. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the turnover at 3 pies per rupee. The assesses appealed, but the Judge (Appeals) was of the opinion that the case called for enhancement in tax as the manufacture and sale of dhoop-batti fell within item No. 37 of Notification No. ST. 905/X dated 31st March, 1956, and was liable to tax under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, i.e., at single point. The Judge (Appeals) estimated the turnover of dhoop and batti at Rs. 10,000 and taxed the sum at one anna per rupee instead of 3 pies per rupee, as had done by the Sales Tax Officer. In this way the tax was enhanced from Rs. 348-14-9 to Rs. 838-11-0. The appellate order was confirmed upon revision, rejecting the assesses's contention that dhoop-batti was used for the purpose of pooja and could not itself be classified in the category of "perfumes".

A reference having been asked for, a case has been stated and the question aforesaid referred.

The short question is as to whether dhoop or dhoop-batti falls within the category of "perfumes" of the said notification. Item No. 37 of the said notification is :

"Scents and perfumes" (in English) and "Itra tatha sugandhian" (in Hindi).

This notification was issued in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 3-A of the Act and it declared that with effect from 1st April, 1956, the goods specified therein will be liable to single point tax, which in the case of goods imported from outside U.P. will be at the point of sale by the importer and in case of goods manufactured in U.P. at the point of sale by the manufacturer. The assesses, admittedly, is a manufacturer of dhoop and dhoop-battis. If these articles fall within the category of "scents or perfumes" then they will be liable to be taxed in the hands of the assesses at the rate of 0-1-0 per rupee, which is the tax declared in the said notification instead of the multi-point sales tax of only three pies in the rupee.

It is common ground that dhoop-batti does not come in the category of scents. On behalf of the sales tax department it is contended that dhoop falls within the category of "perfumes", which is a word of much wider import than scents and includes therein all "incense". On behalf of the assesses it was contended that "perfumes" as used in the notification, must have the meaning which is commonly understood and that dhoop is not used for purposes of perfume or scent but for pooja and therefore would fall outside the category of "perfumes". The matter is not free from difficulty but in my judgment the word "perfume" should be given the meaning which is ordinarily understood in the world of commerce. Sales and purchase tax is a tax on goods bought and sold by a dealer. It is therefore important not to lose sight of this fact when interpreting a notification under the Sales Tax Act. The meaning given to a word by commercial men must ordinarily be preferred to the dictionary meaning. The Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola ([1961] 12 S.T.C. 286), observed that "the word 'vegetable' must be construed not in any technical manner nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance." If this test is applied then there cannot be much doubt that the word "perfumes" would not in common parlance be understood to include dhoop which does not emit by