Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Ayurveda Pharmacy & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 1989

New India Industries Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 27 November, 1989

22. We may also observe that some unnecessary confusion had been caused by reason of plea taken in some of the reported cases on behalf of the Union of India that the decision in M/s. D. Cawasji and Co.'s case (supra) was no longer good law by reason of the subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the cases of (1) The Newabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Union of India, (supra), (2) Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (supra), (3) Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab and M/s. the Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab, (supra), (4) U. P. State Electricity Board v. City Board, Mussorie, (supra), (5) State of M. P. v. Vyankatlal (supra) and (6) Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 37 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Venkateswara Chemicals vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 3 July, 2001

In our considered opinion, none of these authorities would in any way support or advance the contention of the learned Counsel, in Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Supreme Court held that Arishtams and Asavas, (Ayurvedic medicines containing alcohol) are medicinal preparations and even though they contain a high alcohol content, so long as they continue to be identified as medicinal preparations they must be treated, for the purposes of the Sales Tax Law, in like manner as medicinal preparations generally, including those containing a lower percentage of alcohol and that levy of higher rate of sales tax on these two Ayurvedic medicinal preparations on ground that they contain a high percentage of alcohol is therefore discriminatory. However in the same decision, the Apex Court has held that it is open to the Legislature, or the State Government if it is authorised in that behalf by Legislature, to select different rates of tax for different commodities and what the actual rate should be, is not a matter for the Courts to determine generally. The ratio decidendi of the judgment in that case is that where the commodities belong to the same class or category, there must be a rational basis for discriminating between one commodity and another for the purpose of imposing tax. Since we have held that the commodities included in Entry 80 and the commodities included in Entry 80-A are not the same, the above ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court has no application to the facts of this case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 75 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Brite Rubber Processor Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tripura on 28 July, 2017

In Ayurveda Pharmacy (supra) the apex court held that 'two items' of the same category cannot be discriminated and where such distinction is made between items falling in the same category it should be done on a reasonable basis, in order to save such a classification being contravention of Article 14 of the W.P(C) No.234 of 2015 Page 78 of 87 [79] Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the classification made under Section 10 of TVAT Act vis-à-vis the sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce does not have any rational or intelligible basis having regard to the object of providing Input Tax Credit. The classification is grossly irrational and would defeat the very object of providing Input Tax Credit. In this juncture, the statement of the learned Advocate General is required to be referred that purpose or object of giving Input Tax Credit is to accelerate industrialization in the State by way of setting up of manufacturing units.
Tripura High Court Cites 103 - Cited by 3 - S Talapatra - Full Document

The Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Another on 4 January, 2006

In Ayurveda Pharmacy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 (2) SCC 285, which is the sheet anchor of the appellants' submission the facts were: that the appellants were manufacturers of Ayurvedic drugs and medicines, including Arishtams and Asavas. Arishtams and Asavas contain alcohol, which according to the assessee was essential for the effective and easy absorption of the medicine by the human system and also because it acted as a preservative. While all other patent or proprietary medicinal preparations belonging to the different systems of medicines were taxed at the rate of 7% only, Arishtams prepared under the Ayurvedic system were made subject to a levy of 30%. . The appellants filed the writ petitions in the High Court of Madras challenging the levy at 30% on Arishtams and Asavas, being violative of Article 14 as well as Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. High Court dismissed the writ petition by observing that the imposition of the rate of 30% on the sale of Arishtams and Asavas must be regarded principally as a measure for raising revenue, and repelled the argument that the rate of tax was discriminatory or that Article 19(1)(g) was infringed. Reversing the decision it was held by this Court that the two preparations, Arishtams and Asavas, were medicinal preparations, and even though they contained a high alcohol content, so long as they continue to be identified as medicinal preparations they must be treated, for the purposes of the Sales Tax Law, in like manner as medicinal preparations generally, including those containing a lower percentage of alcohol. In the said case the charge of discrimination was upheld having regard to the inherent nature of the commodity and its similarity with others falling within the same category. But in the present case, the rate of tax on cement is made dependant on whether the sale price of cement includes the cost of packing materials.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Ors vs Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical ... on 14 May, 2007

The difference, according to this decision, distinguishes the basis of the judgment of this Court in Ayurveda Pharmacy case in as much as the Assam Act did not identify the medicinal preparations containing more than 12% alcohol as being the same as other medicinal preparations not containing alcohol. It was also noted in that decision that on the other hand these types of spirituous medicinal preparations, which contained 12% alcohol, have been separately classified for the levy of tax under Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act. In that view of the matter, the classification founded in the said decision with regard to the medicinal preparations based on the strength of alcohol contents in the same, cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as held by the High Court. This decision, as already noted, is of no help to the appellants and the reasons that this decision will not help the appellants have already been discussed above. Accordingly, we are not in a position to rely on the decision as cited by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 125 - Full Document

Loknath Chakrapanidas Mahant vs State Of Gujarat on 27 August, 2021

16. The reasonableness of this classification must be examined on the basis, that when the object of the taxing provision is not to tax the sale of certain chemical fertilizers included in the list, which clearly points out that all the fertilizers with the similar compositions must be included without excluding any other chemical fertilizer which has the same elements and compositions. Thus, there is no reasonable nexus of such classification among various chemical fertilizers of the same class by the state. This court in the case of Ayurveda Pharmacy (supra) held that two items of the same category cannot be discriminated and where such a distinction is made between items falling in the same category it should be done on a reasonable basis, in order to save such a classification being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Gujarat High Court Cites 153 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta vs Central Board Of Direct Texes on 4 February, 2021

Therefore, by claiming to retain the tax which has been collected without the authority of law, the Government cannot enrich itself and it is liable to make restitution to the person who had made payment under any mistake or under coercion vide (1) Patel India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, ; (2) D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore, (supra): (3) Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (4) Salonath Tea Co. v. Supdt. of Taxes, ; (5) Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu, .
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta vs Central Board Of Direct Texes on 4 February, 2021

Therefore, by claiming to retain the tax which has been collected without the authority of law, the Government cannot enrich itself and it is liable to make restitution to the person who had made payment under any mistake or under coercion vide (1) Patel India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, ; (2) D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore, (supra): (3) Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (4) Salonath Tea Co. v. Supdt. of Taxes, ; (5) Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu, .
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida vs State Of Gujarat on 27 August, 2021

16. The reasonableness of this classification must be examined on the basis, that when the object of the taxing provision is not to tax the sale of certain chemical fertilizers included in the list, which clearly points out that all the fertilizers with the similar compositions must be included without excluding any other chemical fertilizer which has the same elements and compositions. Thus, there is no reasonable nexus of such classification among various chemical fertilizers of the same class by the state. This court in the case of Ayurveda Pharmacy (supra) held that two items of the same category cannot be discriminated and where such a distinction is made between items falling in the same category it should be done on a reasonable basis, in order to save such a classification being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Gujarat High Court Cites 153 - Cited by 7 - V Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next