{"id":89357,"date":"1972-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972"},"modified":"2017-12-02T00:47:15","modified_gmt":"2017-12-01T19:17:15","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 78, \t\t 1973 SCR (2) 852<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  S. N. BROTHERS, KANPUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/11\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR   78\t\t  1973 SCR  (2) 852\n 1973 SCC  (3) 496\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1977 SC 132\t (15)\n D\t    1977 SC 597\t (41)\n R\t    1988 SC2176\t (4)\n R\t    1988 SC2229\t (9)\n RF\t    1990 SC1579\t (44)\n RF\t    1991 SC 494\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\nU.P. Sales Tax Act (15 of 1948) s. 3 and Notification  under\ns.  3A\t'Food  colors'\tif  'dyes  and\tcolors'\t and  'Syrup\nessences' if 'scents and perfumes'\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nItem  10 of the notification under s. 3A of  U.P.  Sales-tax\nAct,  1948, referred to 'dyes and colors'  and\tcompositions\nthereof,  and  item  37\t to  'scents  and  perfumes'.\t The\nrespondent (dealer) imported from outside U.P., food  colors\nand  syrup  essences.\tThe appellant  held  that  the\tfood\ncolors\tfell  under item 10 of the  notification  and  syrup\nessences  under item 37 of the notification, and  that\tthey\nshould\tbe taxed at six paise per rupee under the Act.\t The\ndealer\tcontended  that\t the tax on food  colors  and  syrup\nessences  should  be at the rate of two paise per  rupee  as\nunclassified goods under s.3 of the Act.  The High Court, in\nreference, agreed with the dealer's contention.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : The words 'dyes and colors' and the words 'scent\t and\nperfumes'  have to be construed in their context and in\t the\nsense as ordinarily understood and attributed to these words\nby people usually conversant with and dealing in such goods.\nSimilarly,  the\t words 'food colors' and  'syrup  essences',\nwhich  are descriptive of the class of goods, the  sales  of\nwhich are to be taxed under the Act, have to be construed in\nthe  sense in which they are popularly understood  by  those\nwho  deal  in  them and who purchase and  use  them.   'Food\ncolors' and 'syrup essences' are edible goods, whereas 'dyes\nand  colors'  and  'scents and perfumes',  as  specified  in\nentries 10 and 37, prima facie do not connote that they\t are\nedible\tgoods.\tThe scheme of the list in  the\tnotification\nalso  suggests that, apart from undoubted edible  goods,  in\ncases where the import of the specified goods is wide enough\nto  include both edible and non-edible categories, then\t the\nintention  has been clearly expressed whether or not to\t in-\nclude  edible goods.  Therefore, entries 10 and 37  are\t not\nintended  to extend to edible colors like 'food colors'\t and\nedible\tessences like 'Syrup essences'.\t In any\t event,\t the\nview  taken  by the High Court is not so  grossly  erroneous\nthat it should be interfered with in a special leave  appeal\nunder Art. 136. [856 F-G; 858 D-E, F-H; 859 A-B]\nSarin  Chemical\t Laboratory  v. Commissioner  of  Sales<\/a>\t tax\n[1970]\t26  S.T.C. 330, Ramvatar  Budhiprasad  v.  Assistant\nSales Tax Officer, Akola, [1961] 12 S.T.C. 286, Commissioner\nof  Sales  Tax.\t M.P. Indore v. Jaswant Singh  Charan  Singh<\/a>\n[1967]\t19  S.T.C. 469 and Sales Tax  Commissioner  U.P.  v.\nLadha Singh Mal Singh,<\/a> [1971] 28 S.T.C. 325 referred to.\nKishan\tChand  Chellaram  v. Joint  Commercial\tTax  Officer\nChintradripet, [1968] 21 S.T.C. 367 approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2088  of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and order,  dated
\nApril  3, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in S. Y.  R.\t No.
\n306 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
853<\/span><\/p>\n
S. C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana for the appellants.
\nA. K. Sen, K. P. Gupta and Champat Rai for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDUA, J.-This appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax,  Uttar
\nPradesh\t is  by special leave and is  directed\tagainst\t the
\njudgment of the Allahabad High Court answering the following
\nquestion  in  the  negative  in\t favour\t of  the  respondent
\n(hereinafter called the dealer) and against the Commissioner
\nof Sales Tax, appellant
\n\t      “Whether the food color and essence are  under
\n\t      the  circumstances  items to  be\ttaxed  under
\n\t      section  3A  within the notification  No.\t ST-
\n\t      905\/X dated March 31, 1956 ?”\n<\/p>\n
The  dealer carries on the business, inter alia, of  selling
\nfood colors and syrup essences.\t The dealer also carries  on
\nthe  business  of petroleum jelly but we are  not  concerned
\nwith that item in this appeal nor are we concerned with\t the
\nsales  of imported scents and perfumes which,  according  to
\nthe order of the Sales Tax Officer, were separately shown in
\nthe  statement filed by the dealer, ,during  the  assessment
\nproceedings  for  the year 1960-61.  For the said  year\t the
\nSales  Tax  Officer  taxed food colors\tand  syrup  essences
\nimported  by the dealer from outside Uttar Pradesh under  s.
\n3A of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 15 of 1948 (hereinafter called the
\nAct)  treating\tthem as imported colors and  perfumes.\t The
\nfigures of the dealer’s trading account were accepted by the
\nSales  Tax  Officer.  The dealer, according  to\t whom,\tfood
\ncolors\tand  syrup essences being  unclassified\t goods\twere
\ntaxable\t under\ts.  3  and  not under  s.  3A  of  the\tAct,
\nunsuccessfully\tappealed against the order of the Sales\t Tax
\nOfficer\t to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial); II  Sales
\nTax,  Kanpur.\tFurther revision to the Court of  the  Judge
\n(Revisions)  Sales  Tax,  Lucknow  also\t failed.   It\tmay,
\nhowever, be pointed out that for the assessment year 1957-58
\nthe  Appellate\tAuthority  had,\t in  disagreement  with\t the
\nassessing officer, held food colors and essences of syrup to
\nbe unclassified items and had granted the relief claimed  by
\nthe   dealer.\tAgainst\t that  decision\t of  the   Appellate
\nAuthority  the Department preferred a revision to the  Court
\nof  the Judge (Revision), Sales Tax.  Both these  revisions,
\nby the Department with respect to the assessment year  1957-
\n58  and\t by the dealer with respect to the  assessment\tyear
\n1960-61\t were heard together and disposed of by\t the  common
\norder dated November 19, 1965.\tThe dealer’s application for
\nreference  was,\t however,  allowed  and\t the  learned  Judge
\n(Revisions).   Sales Tax referred for determination  of\t the
\nAllahabad   High  Court\t “he  question\treproduced  in\t the
\nbeginning of this Judgment.  The High Court agreed with\t the
\ndealer’s contention and held food colors and syrup  essences
\nnot to fall within the entries at items nos. 10 and
\n854<\/span>
\n37  of\tthe  Notification  under S.  3A\t of  the  Act.\t The
\nreference  was\taccordingly  answered in  the  negative\t and
\nagainst the Department.\t The only question which now’  falls
\nfor determination is the one referred to the High, Court and
\nwhich  has  already been reproduced.  There  is\t no  dispute
\nabout the turnover.  The dealer claims that on imported food
\ncolors\tand syrup essences the rate of tax should be  2\t nP.
\nper  rupee  as\tunclassified  goods  under  S.\t3,   whereas
\naccording  to the Commissioner the tax should be 6  nP.\t per
\nrupee  under  s.  3A of the Act.   Section  3  provides\t for
\nliability to tax under the Act whereas section 3A, which was
\ninserted  by  U.P. Act 25 of 1948 and  has  thereafter\tbeen
\namended from time to time, deals with single point taxation.
\nSection 3A reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3-A.\tSingle\t point\t taxation   :\t (1)
\n\t      Notwithstanding anything contained in  Section
\n\t      3,  the State Government may, by\tnotification
\n\t      in  the  official Gazette,  declare  that\t the
\n\t      turnover\tin respect of any goods or class  of
\n\t      goods  shall  not be liable to tax  except  at
\n\t      such  single point in the series of  sales  by
\n\t      successive dealers as the State Government may
\n\t      specify.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   If\t the   State  Government   makes   a
\n\t      declaration  under  sub-section  (1),  it\t may
\n\t      further  declare that the turnover in  respect
\n\t      of  such goods shall be liable to tax at\tsuch
\n\t      rate not exceeding ten naya paise per rupee as
\n\t      may be specified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Every   notification  made\tunder\tthis
\n\t      section shall be laid\tbefore\t\t the
\n\t      Legislative  Assembly of the State as soon  as
\n\t      may  be after it is made and if  a  resolution
\n\t      amending\tor  modifying it is  passed  by\t the
\n\t      Assembly\twithin\tthe session in which  it  is
\n\t      laid,  it shall, from the date of\t passing  of
\n\t      the   resolution,\t be  amended   or   modified
\n\t      accordingly  but\twithout\t prejudice  to\t the
\n\t      validity of anything previously done or of any
\n\t      liability incurred or assessment made.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  March  31, 1955 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh  issued  a
\nnotification in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3A of
\nthe  Act.   That  notification so far as  relevant  for\t our
\npurpose reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Notification  No. ST-905\/X dated 31st  March,
\n\t      1955.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In exercise of the powers conferred by section
\n\t      3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 as  amended
\n\t      from  time to time and in supersession of\t all
\n\t      previous\tNotifications  on the  subject,\t the
\n\t      Governor of Uttar Pradesh is hereby pleased to
\n\t      declare  that the turnover in respect  of\t the
\n\t      good,,  specified in the List below shall\t not
\n\t      with  effect from April 1, 1956, be liable  to
\n\t      tax “cept-(a)
\n\t      855<\/span>
\n\t      in  the  case of goods imported  from  outside
\n\t      Uttar  Pradesh  at the, point of sale  by\t the
\n\t      importer; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   in\tthe  case of goods  manufactured  in
\n\t      Uttar  Pradesh  at the point of  sale  by\t the
\n\t      manufacturer;  and  the  Governor\t is  further
\n\t      pleased  to declare that such  turnover  shall
\n\t      with effect from the said date be taxed at the
\n\t      rate of one anna per rupee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       LIST\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      10.   Dyes   and\t colors\t  and\tcompositions
\n\t      thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      37.   Scents and perfumes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  narrow point requiring decision is whether good  colors
\nand syrup essences imported by the dealer from outside\tU.P.
\nfall within the entries 10 and 37 respectively.\t If they do,
\nthen the appeal of the Department has to succeed and if they
\ndo  not then the appeal must fail.  As noticed\tearlier\t the
\nHigh  Court  has in the impugned judgment,  in\tdisagreement
\nwith the view taken by the Sales Tax Officer, the  Assistant
\nCommissioner  (Judicial)  and the Judge\t (Revisions),  Sales
\nTax,  held that the food colors and essences do not fall  in
\nthe entries at items 10 and 37 of the Notification.  This is
\nhow   the   High  Court\t has  dealt  with   the\t  point\t  in
\ncontroversy:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The notification with which we are  concerned
\n\t      in  the instant case is notification no.\t ST-
\n\t      905\/1 dated March 31, 1956.  Item nos. 10\t and
\n\t      37 of that notification read as follows :
\n\t      ’10.  Dyes and colors and composition thereof.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      37. Scents and perfumes.’
\n\t      The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax is\tthat
\n\t      food colors would fall under item no. 10 i.e.,
\n\t      ‘dyes and colors and composition thereof’\t and
\n\t      essence would fall in the entry given in\titem
\n\t      no.  37  i.e., ‘scents  and  perfumes’.\tFood
\n\t      colors  are edible, articles.  The  expression
\n\t      ‘dyes and colors and composition thereof’ does
\n\t      not  relate  to  item  of\t food  but  only  to
\n\t      coloring\tand dyeing material  i.e.,  material
\n\t\t\t    for\t color washing or color painting o
\nr  dyeing
\n\t      of  fabrics.   In our opinion,  it  stands  in
\n\t      contradistinction\t  to   bleaching   material.
\n\t      Similarly, the entry at item no 37 relates  to
\n\t      articles\twhich  cater to the  smelling  sense
\n\t      i.e., those which appeal to nose.\t Essence  is
\n\t      a\t flavoring material and its function  is  to
\n\t      add  flavor to the food i.e., to make it\tmore
\n\t      palatable.  It appeals to the tongue or to the
\n\t      palate.\tBy  scents and\tper-fumes  is  meant
\n\t      articles\t of  perfumery.\t  In  our   opinion.\n<\/p>\n
\t      therefore, the food colors and essences  would
\n\t      not  fall in the entries at items nos. 10\t and
\n\t      37 of the notification
\n\t      856<\/span>
\n\t      aforesaid.   In our opinion they could not  be
\n\t      taxed under section 3A but under section 3  of
\n\t      the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Shri Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellant,  assailed
\nthe reasoning and approach of the High Court.  According  to
\nhim the words “dyes and colors” in entry no. 10 of the\tList
\nin  the Notification in question and the words\t“scents\t and
\nperfumes”  in entry no. 37 of the said List are\t unqualified
\nand there being no limitation discernible on their plain and
\ngeneral\t meaning,  they must be held to be  wide  enough  to
\ncover  ‘food  colors’\tand ‘syrup  essences’.\t In  seeking
\nsupport for this submission reference was made to the Random
\nHouse  Dictionary  of  the  English  Language  (prepared  in
\nU.S.A.) for ascertaining the meanings of the words ”  color”
\n(color,\t as spelt in this dictionary), “dye” and  “essence”,
\nas  also to Encyclopedia Britannia Vols. 8 & 17\t and  Corpus
\nJuris  Secunduin,  Vols.  28 and 70 for\t the  same  purpose.
\nStrong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court  in
\nCommissioner  of Sales Tax U.P. v. Indian Herbs\t Research  &
\nSupply\tCo.(1)\tin  which the word  “perfume”  was  held  to
\ninclude\t “dhoop” and “dhoop batti”.  The word “perfume”,  it
\nmay  be recalled occurs in the entry no. 37 of the  List  in
\nthe Notification in question.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion the Random House Dictionary cannot serve as a
\nsafe  guide in construing the words used in the List in\t the
\nNotification in question for the purpose of deciding whether
\nor  not the words used in entries nos. 10 and 37 cover\tfood
\ncolors and syrup essences : indeed this Dictionary is apt to
\nbe  a somewhat delusive guide in understanding the  meanings
\nof the words and expressions with which we are concerned  in
\nthe  context in which they are used.  This Dictionary  gives
\nall  the  different shades of meanings attributable  to\t the
\nwords  referred\t but that is hardly helpful in\tsolving\t the
\nproblem raised in the present controversy.  The words- “dyes
\nand  colors” used in entry no. 10 and the words “scents\t and
\nperfumes” used in entry no. 37 have to be construed in their
\nown  context and in the sense, as ordinarily understood\t and
\nattributed to these words by people usually conversant\twith
\nand  dealing  in  such goods.\tSimilarly  the\twords  “food
\ncolors”\t and “syrup essences” which are descriptive  of\t the
\nclass of goods the sales of which are to be taxed under\t the
\nAct  have  to be construed in the sense, in which  they\t are
\npopularly  understood  by  those who deal in  them  and\t who
\npurchase and use them.\tThe respondent’s learned counsel has
\nin  support of this view referred us to some decided  cases.
\nIn  Kishan Chand Chellaram v. Joint Commercial Tax  Officer,
\nChintradripet(2) a Bench of the Madras High Court held\tthat
\nTerylene, Terene, Decorn, Nylon, Nylex etc., came within the
\nexpression “artificial silk” occurring at item no. 4 in\t the
\nThird  Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax\t Act,  1959.
\nIn the course of the judgment in
\n(1) (1970) 25 S.T.C. 151.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1968) 21 S.T.C. 367.\n<\/p>\n
857<\/span><\/p>\n
that  case  it was observed that the import and\t content  of
\nthose words have not been defined in the Sales Tax Acts\t and
\nthe  Courts  are  bound\t to have  recourse  to\tthe  meaning
\nattributable to such words by persons who are dealing in and
\nutilising such goods.  The extreme, peculiar and  scientific
\nmeaning of the goods which might sometimes deviate from\t the
\npopular\t meaning,  cannot prevail.  The\t meaning  which\t the
\ntrade,\tGovernment officials and statutes attribute  to\t the
\nwords “artificial silk” was considered by the High Court  to
\nbe the ordinary and popular meaning of that expression.\t  In
\nSarin  Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of  Sales  Tax<\/a>(1)
\nthis Court held tooth powder to be a “toilet requisite”\t and
\nliable to sales tax at a single point under s. 3A of the Act
\nread  with entry no. 6 of the: notification, with which\t we,
\nare  also concerned in the present case, it  being  observed
\nthat  the  names of the, articles, sales and.  purchases  of
\nwhich  are  liable to be taxed, given in a  statute,  unless
\ndefined in the statute, must be construed not in a technical
\nsense  but  as\tunderstood in common  par  lance.   In\tthis
\ndecision  reference was made to an earlier decision of\tthis
\nCourt  by five Judges in Ramvatar Budhiprasad  v.  Assistant
\nSales Tax Officer Okola (2 in which “betel leaves” were\t not
\nconsidered  as “vegetable”.  In Commissioner of\t Sales\tTax,
\nM.P. Indore v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh<\/a>(3) the word “coal”
\nwas  held  by  this Court to include  “charcoal”,  it  being
\nobserved that, while interpreting items in statutes like the
\nSales  Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the  scientific
\nOr  technical  meaning of such terms, but to  their  popular
\nmeaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing  in
\nthem,  that  is to say, to their commercial sense.   In\t the
\ncourse\t of  the  judgment,  after  referring\tto   certain
\ndecisions, including the decisions from Australian, Canadian
\nand English Courts, it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  result emerging from these decisions  is
\n\t      that while construing the word “coal” in entry
\n\t      1\t of Part III of Schedule 11, the  test\tthat
\n\t      would be applied is what would be the  meaning
\n\t      which persons dealing with coal and  consumers
\n\t      purchasing it as fuel would give to that word.
\n\t      A\t sales tax statute, being one levying a\t fax
\n\t      on  goods must, in the absence of a  technical
\n\t      term or a term of science or art, be  presumed
\n\t      to   have\t used  an  ordinary  term  as\tcoal
\n\t      according\t to  the meaning ascribed to  it  in
\n\t      common parlance.\tViewed from that angle\tboth
\n\t      a\t merchant  dealing in coal  and\t a  consumer
\n\t      wanting  to purchase it would regard coal\t not
\n\t      in  its geological sense but in the  sense  as
\n\t      ordinarily   understood  and   would   include
\n\t      ‘charcoal’  in  the term ‘coal’. It  is  only
\n\t      when  the question of the kind or\t variety  of
\n\t      coal  would arise that a distinction would  be
\n\t      made between coal and charcoal; other-
\n\t      (1)  (1970)26S.T.C.339.\t  (2)\t (1961)\t  12
\n\t      S.T.C. 286.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   (1967) 19 S.T.C. 469.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      858<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      wise  both of them would in ordinary  parlance
\n\t      as also in their commercial sense be spoken as
\n\t      coal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It may be pointed out that the entry in the case cited\tread
\n“coal  including  coke\tin all its  forms”.   In  Sales\t Tax
\nCommissioner\/  U.P.  v.\t Ladha\tSingh  Mal  Singh<\/a>(1)   cloth
\nmanufactured by means of power-looms was held by this  Court
\nnot to fall within the words  ” cloth manufactured by mills”
\nin  the Notification dated June 8, 1948, issued under s.  3A
\nof the Act and the sale of such cloth was held not liable to
\nbe taxed at the higher rate of 6 ps. in a rupee.   According
\nto  this  decision power-loom cloth in popular\tlanguage  is
\nnever associated with mill cloth.  In view of these and some
\nother  decisions the learned counsel for the  appellant,  it
\nmay be said in fairness, did not dispute that the words with
\nwhich we are concerned must be construed in the sense  which
\nis  imputed  to\t them by the persons who  deal\tin  and\t who
\nconsume such articles.\n<\/p>\n
“Food  colors”\tand “syrup essence” being  themselves  known
\narticles  of  common use, the question\tarises\twhether\t the
\nwords and expressions used in entries 10 and 37 of the\tList
\nare intended to take within their fold goods popularly known
\nin common parlance by the names of “food colors” and  “syrup
\nessences”.\n<\/p>\n
It  cannot  be\tgain  said that\t “food\tcolors”\t and  “syrup
\nessences”  are\tedible goods whereas “dyes  and\t colors\t and
\ncompositions thereof” and “scents and perfumes” as specified
\nin  entries  nos. 10 and 3 7 of the List do not\t seem  prima
\nfacie  to connote that they are edible goods.  This  is\t the
\nreasoning of the High Court and it appears to us to be\tboth
\nlogical and rational.  Indeed, except for items like  ‘salt’
\nin  entry no. 34, the “sugar manufactured by  mills’  (entry
\nno.  49)  and  “Banaspati, including  refined  coconut\toil”
\n(entry no. 43) which is capable of being used as medium\t for
\ncooking is prima facie edible there does not seem to be\t any
\nother  edible  article included in the List.   Item  no.  25
\nspeaks\tof  “Oils  of  all  kinds  other  than\tedible\toils
\nmanufactured  on  Ghanis by human or  animal  power”.\tThis
\nscheme suggests that, apart from the undoubted edible goods,
\nin  cases  where the import of the specified goods  is\twide
\nenough\tto include both edible and non-edible category\tthen
\nthe  intention has been clearly expressed whether or not  to
\ninclude\t edible goods.\tHow in the case of entries  nos.  10
\nand  37 we are inclined to think in agreement with the\tHigh
\nCourt  that  these  entries are not intended  to  extend  to
\nedible\tcolors like food colors and to edible essences\tlike
\nsyrup  essences.  It would indeed be straining the  meanings
\nof the words and expressions in those entries as  understood
\nin  popular  commercial sense to include edible\t colors\t and
\nessence-,.  If the intention of the State Government was  to
\ninclude\t food colors in entry no. 10 and syrup\tessences  in
\nentry no. 37 then in our view these goods could easily\thave
\nbeen
\n(1)  (1971) 28 S.T.C. 325.\n<\/p>\n
859<\/span><\/p>\n
specified by their own popularly known description.  In\t any
\nevent assuming that another view as to the meaning of  these
\nentries is possible we have not been persuaded to hold\tthat
\nthe  view taken ‘by the High Court is so  grossly  erroneous
\nthat we should interfere on special leave appeal under\tArt.
\n136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Manchanda made a passing reference to the Prevention of
\nFood  Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under ss. 4 and 23  of
\nthe  Prevention\t of Food Adulteration Act, 37  of  1954\t and
\npointed\t out  that  r. 23 postulates  addition\tof  coloring
\nmatter\tto  an\tarticle\t of  food  when\t permitted.    This,
\naccording to the argument, suggests that the word ‘color’ as
\nused  in  entry no. 10 of the List of  the  Notification  in
\nquestion has been used in a broad enough sense so as to take
\nwithin\tits  fold edible color or food color.\tWe  are\t not
\nimpressed  by this argument.  Rule 23 of the  Prevention  of
\nFood  Adulteration  Rules  indeed seems to  go\tagainst\t the
\nsubmission.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant’s learned counsel had at one stage  suggested
\nthat  the goods intended to be taxed under s. 3A of the\t Act
\nare  all  luxury goods and therefore food colors  and  syrup
\nessences  which\t are normally used by  comparatively  richer
\nclass of society should be presumed to have been intended to
\nbe included in items nos. 10 and 37 of the List.  On  closer
\nscrutiny  of the List, however, this point was\trightly\t not
\ndeveloped.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons foregoing this appeal fails and is dismissed
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t       Appeal dismissed.\n860<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 78, 1973 SCR (2) 852 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. S. N. BROTHERS, KANPUR DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/11\/1972 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T19:17:15+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\\\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T19:17:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\"},\"wordCount\":3077,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\\\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T19:17:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\\\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-01T19:17:15+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972","datePublished":"1972-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T19:17:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972"},"wordCount":3077,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972","name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T19:17:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-ms-s-n-brothers-kanpur-on-2-november-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax U.P vs M\/S. S. N. Brothers, Kanpur on 2 November, 1972"}]},{"@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\/89357","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=89357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}