Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.35 seconds)
Qudratullah Ahmed Syed vs The State Of Telangana And 8 Others on 30 November, 2021 cites

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 2004

"25. It is true the Apex Court in Godawat Pan Masala's case held that mere traces of magnesium 55 carbonate formed during consumption of product along with lime cannot be banned, but in the instant case anticaking agent viz., magnesium carbonate is not found during consumption but the analytical report discloses that magnesium carbonate is contained in the very sample which, in our considered opinion may be either externally added or present in the raw materials. Whatsoever the case may be, the report discloses that there is usage of anticaking agent viz., magnesium carbonate in the food article in question namely gutka. That apart Supreme Court in the very same decision held that the provisions of PFA Rules framed and directions issued thereunder cannot be said as not applicable merely because licence is contemplated for manufacture of gutka under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. The PFA Act was legislated for the prevention of adulteration of food whereas Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 is intended to prohibit advertising and to regulate the trade and as such there is no conflict between the legislative objects between the two enactments."
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 428 - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 719 - Full Document

The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 5 February, 1962

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 673 - Full Document

Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Etc vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola on 14 March, 1961

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 334 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd vs The State Of Kerala And Another on 27 April, 1972

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 189 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Shah Ashu Jaiwant vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 1975

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 147 - M H Beg - Full Document

The Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1980

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 223 - D A Desai - Full Document

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 1986

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 378 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 October, 1989

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 72 - Cited by 709 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M/S Siel Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 September, 1998

Ch.Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.1, State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2, Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal3, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola4, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited v. State of Kerala5, Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra6, Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (Private) Limited v. State of U.P.7, D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar8, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. M/s.Parle Exports9, India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu10, Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of 1 1956 SCR 393 2 1959 SCR 379 3 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1 4 (1962) 1 SCR 279 5 (1972) 2 SCC 218 6 (1976) 2 SCC 99 7 (1980) 4 SCC 136 8 (1987) 1 SCC 378 9 (1989) 1 SCC 345 10 (1990) 1 SCC 12 16 U.P.11, State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co.,12, SIEL Limited v. Union of India13, ITC Limited v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee14, S.Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam v. Union of India15, Gulati & Co., v. Commissioner of Sales Tax16, and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. State of Assam17. (21) The respondent No.3/Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated that the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of the products like chewing tobacco. The products contain pure tobacco, flavoured tobacco and scented tobacco. It has been stated that the chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., includes scented tobacco. This also includes edible perfumes and therefore, as per the FSS Act 2006, the spices and other edible perfumes added to the chewing tobacco comes under the definition of 'food'. It has been stated that the law of the land is very clear and the FSS Act 2006 read with Regulations framed thereunder provides that no food product shall contain tobacco and nicotine as ingredient. The stand of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner while obtaining GST 11 (1990) 1 SCC 109 12 (1996) 3 SCC 709 13 (1998) 7 SCC 26 14 (2002) 9 SCC 232 15 (2004) 1 SCC 256 16 (2014) 14 SCC 286 17 (2018) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 168 17 number and GST certificate has stated that he is doing business to sell unmanufactured tobacco, refuse tobacco, not stem or strippe, flue cured Virginia tobacco, but the petitioner is selling chewing tobacco products flavoured with some spices, such as cardamom, menthol, clove etc., scented tobacco comprising edible perfumes. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners are dealing with gutka or pan masala, which certainly contain tobacco.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 149 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next