M/s.Vicco Products (Bombay) v. The Commissioner of Sales
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the result, this application stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) 3 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Judgment
Mr.P.V. Surte for the applicant. Mr.Vinay Sonpal for the respondents. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2006. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2006. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2006. P.C. : Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Sonpal, learned AGP waives service on behalf of the respondents.
Heard finally by consent of the parties.
This is an application at the instance of the assessee - manufacturer of ‘Vicco Vajradanti’ and ‘Vicco Turmeric Ayurvedic Cream’ seeking directions against the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’) to seek reference of the substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal holding that the said products are capable of being used as tooth paste and tooth powder as such they are excluded from the purview of medical formulations and / or preparations. 2
3. The questions sought to be raised revolve around the interpretation of Entry No.C-I-24(1) appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Having heard rival parties, the question with regard to the interpretation of the said entry by itself constitutes substantial question of law. In this case, the following questions framed need consideration at the hands of this Court.
In the abvoe view of th matter, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer two questions given below for the opinion of this Court. Substantial questions of law "1. Whether the product known as ‘Vicco Vajradanti’ (Paste and Powder) are ‘medicines’, within the meaning of entry 24 of Schedule C Part I of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 or they fall under entry 36 of Schedule C, Part II of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?
2. Whether ‘Vicco turmeric Ayurvedic Cream’ is covered by entry 24 of Schedule C Part I which refers to medicines under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 or it falls under entry 86 of Schedule C, Part II of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?"
In the result, this application stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) 3
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; II of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Jun 2006. The bench was P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.