PARDEEP AGGARBATTI, LUDHIANA ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

A                 PARDEEP AGGARBATTI, LUDHIANA ETC.
                                 v.
                      STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                OCTOBER 23, 1997

B                     [S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]


          Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 :

           Schedule A-Entry 16-Scope of-Appellant a registered dealer of
C    'Dhoop' and 'Aggarbatti '-Assessment to sales tax-Levy of sales tax on the
     basis that 'Dhoop' and 'Aggarbatti' were covered by· 'perfumery '-Writ
    challenging the levy allowed by a single Judge of the High Court-On
    appeal Division Bench reversed the decision of single Judge-Appeal before
    Supreme Court-Held the word "perfumery" in Entry No. 16 draws colour
D   from the words 'cosmetics' and 'toilet goods' therein-So read, the word
     'perfumery' in the said Entry can only refer to such articles of perfamery as
    are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are, upon the person-The word
     ''perfumery" in the context in which it is used has, therefore, no application
    to .'dhoop' and 'aggarbatti'.

E        Sales Tax and Excise statute-Entries-Interpretation of-When Entries
    are grouped together, each word in the Entry draws colour from the other
    words therein-Principle of noscitur a sociis.

          Words and Phrases :

F         'Perfumery'-Meaning of

          Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP. v. lndian Herbs Research and Supply
    Co., 25 STC 151, distinguished.

         Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Gordhandas
G   Tokersey, 52 STC 381 and Boak Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Board of
    Revenue (C.T.) Madras, [1942) STC 370, referred to.

          Assessing Authority v. Amir Chand Om Parkash, 33 STC 120, approved.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1175of1992.
H                                        692
                     PARDEEP AGGARBATTI v. STATE                            693

     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.92 of the Punjab & Haryana             A
High Court in L.P.A. No. 644 of 1984.

                                        WITH
      Civil Appeal Nos. 1176/92, 1177/92, I 178/92, I 179/92.

      S.K. Sinha and R.C. Kohli for the Appellants.                                B
      R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      C.A. No.1175 of 1992.

      The Judgment and order under appeal by special leave was delivered
                                                                                   c
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.

      The appellant is a registered dealer in 'dhoop' and 'aggarbati' and we       D
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.

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

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

        16A. Perfumery including dhoop and Aggarbati."

       The appellant was sought to be made liable to pay sales tax at the rate
of I 0 paisa in a rupee, as was leviable upon items falling under the said Entry   G
No. 16, on the basis that 'dhoop' and 'aggarbati' were covered by the word
"perfumery" therein. The writ petition filed by the appellant there against 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.         H
    694                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   v. Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co., 25 STC 151.

           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 Latha Sugandhian" in Hindi. The
    question was whether "dhoop" or "dhoopbatti." fell within the description of
B   "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
C   ordinary sense and "dhoop" and "dhoopbatti", therefore, fell within that
    word.

           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
D    Tokersey, 52 STC 381. Tue 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
E   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 noseitur 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 comnionly known in the market for use on the human
F   body as perfumes. The Bombay High Court drew support from the judgment
    of the Madras High Court in Boak Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Board of
    Revenue (C. T.), Madras, (1942) STC 370, where a similar view had been taken.
    The Bombay High Court also drew support from the case of Assessing
    Authority v. Amir Chand Om Parkash, 33 STC 120, in which the Punjab &
G   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 of this court in Indian Herbs Research & Supply
    Company by noting that this Court was not there required to consider the
    terms 'scent' and 'perfumes' in conjunction with articles of toilet or cosmetics;
H   the words stood by themselves and there was no reason to limit them in any
                      PARDEEP AGGARBATTI v. STATE                             695
manner.                                                                              A
      In Assessing Authority, Amritsar and Another v. Amir Chand Om
Prakash, 33 S.T.C. 12I, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
considered whether 'dhoop' and 'Aggarbatti' fell within the ambit of the said
Entry No. 16. It held that they did not for two reasons. The first of the two
reasons is no longer valid by reason of a subsequent amendment, but the              B
second reason is still valid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court said :
          "So far as dhoop and agarbatti are concerned, there is another way
          of looking at the matter. The entry (i.e., entry No. 16) is "cosmetics,
          perfumery and toilet goods ......... " The context in which the word
          "perfumery" occurs shows that what is meant by all the three general       C
          items "Cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods," are articles which are
          used for personal hygiene or pleasure. The items which are excepted
          from this entry are "tooth-paste", tooth powder, soap and kum-kum."
          This exception also points to the same conclusion, viz., that only
          those articles of luxury, which are used for personal hygiene and          D
          pleasure were intended to be included in this entry. So the word
          "perfumery" in this cpntext would not include dhoop and agarbatti,
          which are never used for personal hygiene or pleasure, but are primarily
          used for religious ceremonies."
The Punjab & Haryana High Court's attention was drawn to this Court's                E
judgment, in the Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co.'s case and it came
to the conclusion, having analysed it, that it was of no a5sistance because,
as it had already held, the context which the word 'perfumery' occurred in
the said Entry No.16 indicated that it was used only in respect of items used
for personal hygiene.

      The judgment in Amir Chand Om parkash was cited before the Division
                                                                                     F
Bench that delivered the judgment under appeal. It noted, rightly, that the first
ground upon ~hich it had been held that 'dhoop' and 'aggarbatti' fell outside
the word 'perfumery' in the said Entry No.16 no longer survived, but it was
in error in distinguishing the judgment entirely on the ground that "Entry No.
16A specifically mentions 'perfumery' as including Dhoop and Aggarbatties."          G
The second ground in the judgment, namely, that the context in which the
word 'perfumery' was used in the said Entry No.16 showed that it referred
only to perfumes used for personal hygiene or pleasure, remained binding on
the Division Bench that decided the present matter as also the finding that
this Court's decision in the Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. was                H
distinguishable.
    696                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          Entries in the Schedules of Sales tax and Excise statutes list some
    articles separately and some articles are grouped together. When they are
    grouped together, each word in the Entry draws colour from the other words
    therein. This is the principle· of noscitur a sociis.

           We are in no doubt whatever the word "perfumery" in the said Entry
B   No. 16 draws colour from the words 'cosmetics' and 'toilet goods' therein and
    that, so read, the word 'perfumery' in the said Entry No.16 can only refer to
    such articles of perfumery as are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are,
    upon the person. The word "perfumery" in the context, in which it is used
    has, therefore, no application to 'dhoop' and 'aggarbatti'. The distinction
C   between the present case and the case of Indian Herbs Research and Supply
    Company is evident for the word 'perfumes' in the entry under consideration
    in the latter case was not limited by the words before and after, as in the entry
    before us, both the words 'scent' and 'perfumes' related to articles that
    produced fragrances.

D         Consequently, we are of the view that the judgment under appeal is
    erroneous and must be set aside.

          This appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the
    judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the appellant's writ petition is
    restored. No order as to costs.
E
          CA. Nos. 1176192, 1177192, 1178192, 1179192.

         Following the judgment just delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1175/92, these
    appeals are allowed and the judgment under appeal is set aside.

G T.N.A.                                                          Appeals allowed.


                                                                   •