1963 (7) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Mattirai). For the assessment year 1959-60 he submitted a return showing a total turnover of Rs. 70,978 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 62,499-37. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet, (North) Division, rejected his accounts as incorrect and incomplete and determined the taxable turnover to the best of his judgment at Rs. 76,696. He levied six per cent. tax on the goods holding that both tooth-powder and rintan are goods coming within the scope of item 51 of the First Schedule to the Act. Against this order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras II, contending that tooth-powder could not come under the class of goods specified in item 51 of the First Schedule and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..........Modern dentifrices are an extension of the numerous abrasive and cleansing substances used as dentifrices in the early part of 20th century.......Although dentifrices have been considered dental cosmetics at first the emphasis of advertising and the awakening of the hygiene consciousness occasioned by the rising standard of living caused dental cleansing to be regarded as an indispensable daily hygiene, rather than an elective enhancement of beauty.......The primary purpose of a dentifrice is the mechanical cleansing of the teeth.......Although manufacturers of dentifrices have advanced such claims in their behalf as ability to prevent dental caries (decay) and treatment of pyorrhoea, the inexorable fact remains that dentifrices may b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on whether "hairpins" can be considered to be "toilet requisites" falling under item 51 of the First Schedule. After referring to the relevant case-law, we came to the conclusion that hairpins cannot be called "toilet requisites". Following the same principle, we are of opinion that tooth-powder cannot be treated as goods of the same category as are mentioned in item 51 of the First Schedule. No doubt the Tribunal referred to various cases, namely, Sandu Bros. v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1953] 4 S.T.C. 397., Roopkala Industries v. State of Bombay[1956] 7 S.T.C. 557. and Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay [1958] 9 S.T.C. 133., where the questions, whether hair oil, talcum powders and "Badshahi soap" and "Badshahi powder" respectively could be....