MANCHANDA, J. - (1.) THESE are cases stated under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :- "Whether safety razor as manufactured by the applicant-dealer can be classified as cosmetic and toilet within the purview of Notification No. 905/X referred to above ?"
(2.) THE facts lie within a narrow compass. The assessee is a manufacturer of safety razors made out of plastic material. The relevant year of assessment is 1957-58. The assessing officer claimed that such a safety razor fell within the mischief of item No. 6 "cosmetics and toilet requisites" and was, therefore, assessable at a higher rate under the said notification issued under section 3-A of the Act. The assessee's contention, on the other hand, was that a safety razor was not a "cosmetic" nor was it a "toilet requisite" and, therefore, it fell to be assessed at the lower rate under the general charging section 3 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer, however, held safety razors to fall within item No. 6 of the aforesaid notification and assessed it at single point accordingly. The assessment was confirmed by the Judge (Appeals) and the Judge (Revisions). Hence this reference at the instance of the assessee. The relevant notification was issued under the powers conferred by section 3-A of the Act and it was declared :- "that the turnover in respect of the goods specified in the list below shall not with effect from April 1, 1956, be liable to tax except (a) in the case of goods imported from outside Uttar Pradesh, at the point of sale by the importer; and (b) in the case of goods manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, at the point of sale by the manufacturer; and the Governor is further pleased to declare that such turnover shall with effect from the said date be taxed at the rate of one anna per rupee ........" Item 6. "Cosmetics and toilet requisites." The list given in this notification is a very elaborate one and has as many as 47 items ranging from "agricultural implements" to "X-ray machines". Item No. 6 is "cosmetics and toilet requisite." Item No. 35 is "sandalwood oil" but this was deleted by a notification in 1956. Item No. 37 is "scents and perfumes", item No. 38, "soap, other than washing soap". Item Nos. 35, 37 and 38 have been specifically mentioned notwithstanding that they are included in the dictionary meaning of the words "cosmetics and toilet requisites." This shows how meticulous and careful the notification was to specify, even at the cost of repetition, where there was the slightest possibility of such article escaping from the clutches of the notification. There is admittedly no item of razor or safety razor and that is why the department has been pushed into to bring it within item No. 6. The question that falls to be considered is whether the article "safety razor" fairly and squarely falls within the them "cosmetics or toilet requisite" ? "Cosmetics" is the special word used in item No. 6 which is followed by the general words "toilet requisite". What do these words mean ? In Webster's Third New International Dictionary the meaning given to "cosmetic" is "the art of beautifying the body - a preparation (except soap) to be applied to the human body for beautifying preserving or altering the appearance of a person or for cleansing, colouring, conditioning or protecting the skin, hair, nails, lips eyes or teeth." This word in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 20, is given the meaning, "a general term construed as having reference to hair preparations as well as to skin lotions, as including hair oils, dyes and dressings, tooth pastes, washes and dentifrices, and toilet soaps; defined as meaning any external application intended to beautify or improve the complexion, skin or hair." "Toilet", in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, means "to make one's toilet; dress-groom, the process of washing, grooming and arranging one's self for the day's activities or for a special occasion". The examples of this are given as "toilet soap, toiletry, etc.". "Toiletry" means "an article or preparation used in making one's toilet (such as a soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth paste, shaving cream, cologne)". In Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 86, it is mentioned in respect of "toilet" that "there are several different definitions given for the word 'toilet'. It may mean act or process of dressing; also, that which is arranged in dressing; attire; dress; 'get up', also a particular costume; and it may designate the several articles collectively used in making one's toilet. While formerly the terms referred specially to the act or process of dressing hair, in current use it means cleansing and grooming of one's person. Thus, the act of washing and cleansing the hands is a part of making the toilet and the daily shave is generally regarded as a toilet necessity." According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, "requisite" means "required by circumstances or the nature of things." Therefore, a "toilet requisite" will be a thing that is required by circumstances or the nature of the thing for purposes of toilet. It is plain that the dictionary meaning of "toilet" is very wide and toilet requisite cover a large variety of articles ranging from toilet-paper, toilet cloth to the requirements of the dressing table and bath-room. If that is the meaning which has to be given to toilet requisite then a safety razor would conceivably fall within it. That, however, is not the meaning that has to be given to those words in the context in which they are used in the notification. Such meaning could only have been given if item 6, "toilet requisites", had stood alone but they are preceded by the specific word "cosmetic" and therefore the rule of ejusdem generis in the construction of statutes will come into play. In any event it is unnecessary to give any conclusive decision on this aspect as we are taking the view that razors complete or incomplete are not toilet requisite within item 6 of the notification. The rule of ejusdem generis has been considered in three cases by the Supreme Court. In Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 504), it was pointed out that the true scope of the rule of ejusdem generis is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified and not its reverse, that specific words which precede are controlled by the general words which follows. Again in State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan (A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 810), the Supreme Court issued a warning that "apart from the fact that the rule of ejusdem generis must be confined within narrow limits and general or comprehensive words receive their full and natural meaning unless they are clearly restrictive in their intendment. It is requisite that there must be a distinct genus, which must comprise more than one species, before the rule can be applied." Then again, in Smt. Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 521), it was reiterated that it was "the established rule of construction that the Legislature presumed to use the general words in a restricted sense; that is to say, as belonging to the same genus as the particular and specific words. Such a restricted meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it. But where the context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning."
(3.) THEREFORE , what has to be considered is the scheme of the Notification No. 905 in selecting certain goods for single point higher taxation. The intention was quite clear and that was that the general words which followed the specific word were to be given a restricted meaning. "Cosmetic" was the specific word and this was followed by "toilet requisites". In the context, manufacturers of all "toilet requisites" were not to be taxed at a higher rate. It was only the manufacturer of such toilet requisites as would be of the same genus as "cosmetics" that were to suffer the higher tax. To take some examples to illustrate the point, it is manifest that toilet-paper, toilet-cloth and toilet equipment needed for a dressing room or bath-room would not fall within the mischief of item 6. Nor could it ever have been the intention to include all kinds of articles or artificial aids, which might go to beautify or render the body more beautiful as toilet requisites such as necklaces, jewellery, hairpins, scissors or bangles. On the rule of ejusdem generis, therefore, "toilet requisite" must be confined to those articles which are of the same genus as "cosmetics". If that be the true interpretation of the words "toilet requisites" it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a safety razor with or without a blade as being of the same genus as "cosmetics" though it may be a "toilet requisite" within the wider dictionary meaning.;