{"id":252080,"date":"2008-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2"},"modified":"2018-11-28T21:31:08","modified_gmt":"2018-11-28T16:01:08","slug":"c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008<\/div>\n
SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 - CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008\n\n\n                                               1\/10\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n\n                                              JODHPUR.\n\n\n       1.      S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.170\/2007\n\n       Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur.\n\n                                                 versus\n\n       M\/s Solkit Cosmetics, F-139, Road No.5, Mewar Industrial,\n       Madri, Udaipur.\n\n       2.      S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.162\/2007\n\n       Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur.\n\n                                                 versus\n\n       M\/s Fragrance Cosmetics                        Pvt.   Ltd.,     Mewar         Sheetgarh,\n       Sardarpura, Udaipur.\n\n       3.      S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.163\/2007\n\n       Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur.\n\n                                                 versus\n\n       M\/s Solkit Cosmetics,               F-139, Road No.5, Mewar Industrial,\n       Madri, Udaipur\n\n       4.      S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.171\/2007\n\n       Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur.\n\n                                                 versus\n\n       M\/s Fragrance Cosmetics,                       Mewar Sheetgarh, Sardarpura,\n       Udaipur.\n\n                                         PRESENT\n\n                     HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI\n\n\n       Mr.V.K. Mathur with\n       Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, for the petitioner - Revenue\n       Mr.Dinesh Mehta, for the respondent - assessee\n SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 - CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008\n\n\n                                               2\/10\n\n       DATE OF JUDGMENT                          : 17th November, 2008.\n\n                                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       1.      Following common question of law arises in the present four<\/p>\n
       revision petitions filed by the Revenue :\n<\/p>\n
\n
                        “Whether the Assessing Authority was justified in<\/p>\n
                        imposing additional sales tax on the basis of assessable<\/p>\n
                        value of the commodity “hair oil” sold by the assessee<\/p>\n
                        manufacturer to the distributor M\/s Bajaj Sevashram<\/p>\n
                        Limited       computed as per Section 4<\/a> of the                    Central<\/p>\n
                        Excise      Act,     1944      irrespective       of    actual         sale<\/p>\n
                        consideration charged by the assessee for sale of said<\/p>\n
                        commodity?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       2.       The appellate Authorities below held in favour of the assesseee<\/p>\n
       that the Assessing Authority could not impose such additional tax on<\/p>\n
       the assessee and unless sale consideration was shown to have been<\/p>\n
       charged by the assessee from its purchaser under an agreement, no<\/p>\n
       such additional tax could be imposed upon the respondent – assessee.<\/p>\n
       Upholding the contention of the assessee that imposition of Central<\/p>\n
       Excise Duty on the basis of assessable value computed as per Section<\/p>\n
       4<\/a> of the Central Excise Act was hypothetical sale consideration as far<\/p>\n
       as respondent – assessee was concerned and without burden of proof<\/p>\n
       which lied upon the Revenue to establish that the respondent –<\/p>\n
       assessee had collected anything beyond the sale consideration
\n SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               3\/10<\/span><\/p>\n
       disclosed in the sale invoices, returns and books of accounts<\/p>\n
       maintained in the regular course of business, the                               Appellate<\/p>\n
       Authorities concurrently held that , the Assessing Authority could<\/p>\n
       not impose any such additional sales tax.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       3.       In the present revision petitions filed by the Revenue, the<\/p>\n
       learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Vineet Mathur and Mr. Rishabh<\/p>\n
       Sancheti candidly submitted that as far as question of law is<\/p>\n
       concerned, with the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
       case of State of Rajasthan V\/s Rajasthan Chemist Association<\/p>\n
       reported in (2006) 6 SCC 773, the said question stands decided<\/p>\n
       against the Revenue and though the case involved before the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
       Supreme Court pertained to the Drug Price Control                              order, the<\/p>\n
       analogy and ratio of the said decision would cover the controversy in<\/p>\n
       hand. He further submitted that as far as excise duty component is<\/p>\n
       concerned, actual excise duty paid by the respondent – assessee was<\/p>\n
       already included in the taxable sale price in the hands of the<\/p>\n
       respondent – assessee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       4.       Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
       respondent – assessee on the other hand submitted that the<\/p>\n
       controversy stands covered by the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
       Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Chemist Association and also<\/p>\n
       the judgment of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner,<\/p>\n
       Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes, Udaipur V\/s M\/s Vilas Udhyog
\n SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               4\/10<\/span><\/p>\n
       reported in 2007 (18) Tax-update 184 in which similar question<\/p>\n
       though answered in a brief judgment, concludes this issue in favour<\/p>\n
       of the respondent – assessee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       5.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Chemist<\/p>\n
       Association (supra) while dealing with the validity of Section 4A<\/a><\/p>\n
       inserted in Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 empowering the State<\/p>\n
       Government to impose sales tax on the basis of maximum retail price<\/p>\n
       (MRP for short of commodity held that under Section 4A<\/a> of the Act<\/p>\n
       for the taxable event that              has occurred, the amount received or<\/p>\n
       receivable is assumed to be different from that which is neither<\/p>\n
       received nor receivable and that amount which neither flows from<\/p>\n
       the Control Order, nor which flows from the buyer to the seller under<\/p>\n
       the contact but is relatable to a transaction of sale by a retailer which<\/p>\n
       may not have come into existence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said<\/p>\n
       in para 50 as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                “……..Substitution       of assumed price or the<\/p>\n
                                assumed quantity in place of actual price\/quantity<\/p>\n
                                in a completed sale transaction, for the purpose of<\/p>\n
                                levy of tax on the subject matter of tax results in<\/p>\n
                                taking away from it the character of ‘sale of<\/p>\n
                                goods” as envisaged under the Sales Tax (Sales<\/p>\n
                                Tax Act<\/a>).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               5\/10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       6.       Upholding the Division Bench                   decision of Rajasthan High<\/p>\n
       Court striking down Section 4A of the RST Act as ultra vires, the<\/p>\n
       Apex Court said in para 46 to 55 of the said judgment in Rajasthan<\/p>\n
       Chemist Association (supra) reported in 2006 STC (147) 542 (SC) as<\/p>\n
       under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        “46. Section 4-A<\/a> of the Act which projects itself as an
\n                        exception to Section 4<\/a>, creates a legal fiction in respect
\n                        of price of subject sale, on which rate of tax is to be
\n                        applied. But levy of tax remains single point levy in a
\n                        series of sales. Point of taxable sale remains the first
\n                        point sale i.e. From the manufacturer\/ distributor or the
\n                        wholesaer to the retailer. The tax is to be charged or
\n                        turnover of the assessment year in aggregate. “Turnover”
\n                        is defined under Section 2(44)<\/a> and “taxable turnover”
\n                        under Section 2(42)<\/a> of the Act. For the taxable event
\n                        that has occurred, the amount received or receivable is
\n                        assumed to be different from that which is neither
\n                        received nor receivable and that amount which neither
\n                        flows from the Control Order, nor which flows from the
\n                        buyer to the seller under the contact but is relatable to a
\n                        transaction of sale by a retailer which may not have come
\n                        into existence. For the present, the price to which rate
\n                        of tax is sought to be applied to a sale by a wholesaler
\n                        to a retailer is neither the price agreed upon by the
\n                        parties to the contract of taxable sale to which charge
\n                        is attracted nor flows from the Control Order under
\n                        which also, it is the price of formulation before end
\n                        sale is to be determined within the prescribed limits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        47.     The charging Section 4<\/a> stipulates that the tax
\n                        payable by a dealer under the Act shall be at single point
\n SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               6\/10<\/span><\/p>\n
                        in the series by sales by successive dealers, as may be
\n                        prescribed and shall be levied at such rates not exceeding
\n                        fifty per cent ion the taxable turnover, as may be notified
\n                        by the State Government in the Official Gazette. This
\n                        shows that there is no scope for multi-point levy of tax
\n                        and the tax is levied on the first point sale within the
\n                        State in a series of sales and tax is leviable at the rate
\n                        applied to aggregate of price received or receivable by
\n                        the dealer d on such sales.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        48.     Section 4-A<\/a> does not become workable unless
\n                        read along with the definition of “turnover” and
\n                        “taxable turnover”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        49.     The      retail     price     of    a     formulation        needs
\n                        determination under para 7 of the Order and the
\n                        Government is empowered by the order to fix the price
\n                        in accordance with para 7 of the Order to be charged by
\n                        a retailer. Where the maximum retail price is fixed as
\n                        provided under para 7 of the Control Order, para 19
\n                        provides for price that can be charged from a retailer by a
\n                        wholesaler, it reads as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                “19. Price of formulations sold to be dealer :(1) A
\n                                manufacturer, distributor or wholesaler shall sell a
\n                                formulation        to    a    retailer,     unless     otherwise
\n                                permitted under the provisions of this Order or any
\n                                order made thereunder, at a price equal to the retail
\n                                price, as specified by an order or notified by the
\n                                Government (excluding excise duty, if any), minus
\n                                sixteen per cent thereof in the case of scheduled
\n                                drugs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        50. Applying the principles enunciated above, the
\n                        inevitable conclusion is that when the wholesaler sells
\n SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               7\/10<\/span><\/p>\n
                        any formulation to a retailer in bulk quantity, taxable
\n                        event of sale of goods takes place where the wholesaler
\n                        and retailers are the parties to the contract, the goods in
\n                        question are the formulations and the consideration is
\n                        one which is agreed to between the parties                         to that
\n                        transactions within the limits permissible by law. By
\n                        substituting the assumed quantity of goods or a price
\n                        which is not the subject-matter of that contract of
\n                        completed sale for the purpose of measuring tax, the
\n                        legislature assumes existence of contract of sale of
\n                        drugs by legal fiction which has not taken place and
\n                        which cannot be considered to be a sale in the manner
\n                        stated in the Sales Act<\/a>, which alone can be the subject of
\n                        tax under Entry 54 in List II. Substitution of assumed
\n                        price or the assumed quantity in place of actual price\/
\n                        quantity in a completed sale transaction, for the purpose
\n                        of levy of tax on the subject-matter of tax results in
\n                        taking away from it the character of “sale of goods” as
\n                        envisaged under the Sales Act (Sale of Goods Act<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        51.     Another distinguishing feature to be kept in mind
\n                        is that the central point of legislation under Entry 54 of
\n                        List II of the Seventh Schedule is “sale” in contrast with
\n                        the central point of legislation under Entry 84 of List I of
\n                        the Seventh Schedule i.e. “goods manufactured or
\n                        produced”. While basic nexus of levy in the former is
\n                        “sale of specified goods”, in the latter it is “goods
\n                        manufactured or produced in India”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        52      Even transaction of sale is independent and can be
\n                        subject to levy of tax and the component and the measure
\n                        which can make the tax levy effective must have nexus
\n                        with the taxable event.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               8\/10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        53.     By devising a methodology in the matter of levy of
\n                        tax on sale of goods, law prohibits taxing of a transaction
\n                        which is not a completed sale and also confines sale of
\n                        goods to mean sale as defined under the Act. This
\n                        cannot be overridden by devising a measure of tax
\n                        which relates to an event which has not come into
\n                        existence when tax is ex hypothesi determined, much
\n                        less which can be said to be a completed sale and which
\n                        cannot be the subject of legislation providing tax on
\n                        “sale of goods” by transplanting a sum related to as
\n                        “likely price” to be charged for subsequent sale to be
\n                        taxed by the devise of measuring tax for the completed
\n                        transaction whch has become subject of tax.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        54.     It may be relevant to recall here that this Court in
\n                        Hotel Balaji case held that where a tax was levied as a
\n                        purchase tax and was confined to the purchase price paid
\n                        by the buyer, and was not chargeable at the price at
\n                        which the end produce was sold later, it had retained its
\n                        character as a tax on purchase.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        55.     If the legislation can provide for a measure of tax
\n                        on the subject of tax by substituting any notional value,
\n                        which at no point of time becomes part of or related to
\n                        subject of tax viz. sale of goods, then the fact that it is
\n                        related to MRP loses its significance altogether. If this is
\n                        permitted to be done, the legislation can provide for any
\n                        measure the purpose of applying the rate of tax, whether
\n                        it is founded on MRP or any other fixed value which the
\n                        legislature may provide will make little difference. It is
\n                        not contended by the appellant that even if the measure
\n                        is not relatable to MRP, it can substitute any value as a
\n                        measure of tax. Subject of tax is not the goods or goods
\n SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                               9\/10<\/span><\/p>\n
                        sold, but a transaction of “sale of goods” as defined
\n                        under the Sales Tax.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.       In view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the<\/p>\n
       Hon’ble Apex Court, it can safely be concluded that the Assessing<\/p>\n
       Authority could not impose any additional t ax in the hands of the<\/p>\n
       respondent – assessee on the basis of hypothetical price or sale<\/p>\n
       consideration assuming it to be 50% of the MRP which is the<\/p>\n
       assessable value as computed for the purpose of Central Excise Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
       1944. There appears to be nothing brought on record                                 by the<\/p>\n
       Assessing Authority to prove the case of under-billing or charging of<\/p>\n
       anything beyond the disclosed sale consideration in its returns or<\/p>\n
       invoices. It is doubtless that the burden of proof in this regard lies<\/p>\n
       upon the Revenue. Even if the difference between MRP and the sale<\/p>\n
       consideration shown by the assessee may appear to be huge, it can at<\/p>\n
       best give rise to the initiation of proceedings which the Assessing<\/p>\n
       Authority may initiate for discharging the aforesaid burden of proof<\/p>\n
       as it is a question of fact whether the assessee has charged something<\/p>\n
       extra beyond the disclosed sale consideration or not. Ex hypothesi<\/p>\n
       sale consideration cannot be increased to assessable value as<\/p>\n
       computed under Section 4<\/a> of the Central Excise Act for the purpose<\/p>\n
       of levy of sales tax. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the<\/p>\n
       Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellate Authorities below cannot be<\/p>\n
       said to have committed any error in setting aside imposition of<\/p>\n
       additional tax upon the respondent – assessee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008<\/p>\n
                                              10\/10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       8.       The present revision petitions filed by the Revenue are thus,<\/p>\n
       found to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       No order as to costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Item No.38-41
\n               Ss\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 SBCSALES TAX REVISION NO.170\/2007 – CTO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR V\/S M\/S SOLKIT COSMETICS AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2008 1\/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. 1. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.170\/2007 Commercial Taxes Officer, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-252080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nC.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-28T16:01:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.T.O vs M\\\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T16:01:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":2255,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\",\"name\":\"C.T.O vs M\\\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T16:01:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.T.O vs M\\\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-28T16:01:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T16:01:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2"},"wordCount":2255,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2","name":"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T16:01:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-t-o-vs-ms-frangrance-cosmetics-pvt-ltd-on-17-november-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.T.O vs M\/S Frangrance Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd on 17 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}