IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 370 of 2005 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM IN TA.371/2002 DATED 29.10.2003 .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/RESPOPNDENT/ASSESSEE : --------------------------------------------------------- M/S.PARAMOUNT COSMETIC (INDIA) LTD., ERNAKULAM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln. No.736 of 2005 & S.T.Rev.No. 370 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 Order H.L. Dattu, C. J: Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 2. The revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No.371/02 dated 29.10.2003 is before us in this revision petition. 3. The revenue has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are:- “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, the Tribunal is right in holding that the “Kajal” is an Ayurvedic preparation? ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is right in the light of the theories of common parlance and commercial parlance? iii) Whether the item “kajal” is taxable under the entries of “Cosmetic” or “Medicine” under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?” 4. The questions of law framed by the revenue is no more debatable, in view of the law declared by this Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Tips and Toes Cosmetics India Ltd. 2004 (2) KLT 183. In the said decision the court has 2 observed: “It is not the mere user of the commodity that matters, for, a particular commodity may be used for multi purposes. How the commodity is understood in common parlance is the decisive test though the user of the commodity is also relevant in certain cases. The item kajal dealt with by the assessee is an Ayurvedic medicine liable to tax at the rate applicable under Entry 79 of the First Schedule to the Act”. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the questions of law raised by the revenue is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the revision petition is rejected. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an/dk.