http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PARDEEP AGGARBATTI, LUDHIANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/10/1997

BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.C. SEN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH        C.A. Nos. 1176/92, 1177/92, 1178/92, 1179/92.                          O R D E R C.A.NO. 1175 of 1992      The judgment  and order  under appeal  by special leave was delivered  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 ’aggarbatti’ and  we 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-power, 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, 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 10 paisa in a rupee, as was leviable upon items falling  under the said Entry No.16, on the basis that ’dhoop’  and   ’aggarbatti’  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. v. India Herbs Research and Supply Cp., 25 STC 151.      In 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

and "Ttra  tatha sugandhian"  in Hindi.   The  question  was whether "dhoop"  or "dhoopbatti" fell within the description of "perfume"  thereunder.   This Court  look the  view  that their 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 he construed in its ordinary sense and  "dhoop" and  "dhoopatti", therefore,  fell within that word.      Learned counsel  or 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 Tokersey, 52 STC 381.   The  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  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 noseilur a sociis,  the  words  "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  commonly known  in  the market for  use on  the human body as perfumes.   The Bombay High Court drew support from the judgment of the Madras High Court in  Board Roberts  adn Co.  (India) Ltd.  v. Board  of Revenue (C.T.),  Madras, 1942  STC 370,. here 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  & 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;  the words  stood by themselves and  there was  no reason  to limit  them in  any manner.      In Assessing  Authority, Amritsar,  and Another v. Amir Chand Om  Prakash, 33  S.T.C. 121,  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 second reason is till valid.  The Punjab & Haryana High Court said:      "So far as dhoop and aggarbatti 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      items  "cosmetics,   pefumery   and      toilet goods"  are  articles  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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 viz., that only      those articles of luxury, which are      used  for   personal  hygiene   and      pleasure  were   intended   to   be      included in  this entry.    So  the      word "perfumery"  in  this  context      would   not   include   dhoop   and      aggarbatti, 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 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 assistance because, as it has already held,  the context  in 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 Bench that delivered the judgment under appeal. It noted,  rightly, that  the first ground upon which 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".    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 distinguishable.      Entries in  the  Schedules  of  Sales  tax  and  Excise statutes list  some article 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 that the word "perfumery" in  the  said  Entry  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 between the  present  case  and  the  case  o  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.      Consequently, we  are of  the view  that  the  judgment under appeal is erroneous and must be set aside.      The 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.      C.J.. Nos. 1176/92, 1177/92, 1178/92, 1179/92.      Following the  judgment just  delivered in Civil Appeal No.1175/92, these appeals are allowed and the judgment under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

appeal is set aside.