IN THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Das, Gentle, JJ.
NORTH BENGAL STORES, LTD.
Versus
MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BENGAL.
Sales Tax Reference at the instance of the assessee. Reference No. 45 of 1945,
Decided On :05-06-1946
Sales Tax - Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 - Section 4(5)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a reference by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, regarding the liability of a dispensing chemist to pay tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispensing chemist's business of compounding prescriptions for individual customers constituted the manufacture or production of goods for sale, making the chemist liable to pay tax under Section 4(5)(a) of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the chemist's business qualified as manufacturing under the Act and whether the chemist was liable for registration under Section 7 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted 'manufacture' as bringing into being a commercial article for sale in the business of selling or supplying goods, regardless of the scale of production or the intended recipients of the goods.
Final Decision: The court answered all questions in the affirmative, affirming the liability of the dispensing chemist to pay tax and be registered under the Act.
GENTLE, J. - This is a reference by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, under section 21, sub-section (1), of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The applicants are the North Bengal Stores, Ltd., who are dealers in patent medicines and medical sundries; they are also dispensing chemists and as such they make up and dispense prescriptions, written by medical practitioners for their patients.
By sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded the taxable quantum, specified in sub-section (5) of the same section, shall be liable to pay tax on all sales effected after the notified date. By sub-section (5), taxable, quantum, so far as material for the present reference, means :-
Clause (a) in relation to any dealer who himself manufactures or produces any goods for sale, 10,000 rupees;
Clause (c) in relation to any other dealer, 50,000 rupees.
It is common ground that, during the year preceding the commencement of the Act, the applicants' turnover was less than Rs. 50,000 and they are not liable to taxation under clause (c). The Commercial Tax Officer, however, assessed the applicants on the grounds that dispensing chemists are manufacturers and, since the applicants' turnover during the year before the commencement of the Act exceeded Rs. 10,000, they are liable to assessment pursuant to clause (a).
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengal, and the Board of Revenue, to whom respectively an appeal and a petition for revision were preferred by the applicants, upheld the assessment. The Commissioner expressed the opinion that mixing different medicinal ingredients into an ultimate mixture suitable for use by particular classes of patient consumers according to the manner prescribed by medical men is the manufacture of medicines. The view stated by the Board was that the applicants' business of compounding preparations for use by individual customers is manufacture or production of any entity, different essentially from its ingredients.
Three questions are referred by the Board to this Court; they are as follows :-
(i) Whether, on the facts proved, the petitioners' business is liable for registration under Section 7 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are manufacturers within the meaning of sub-section (5)(a) of Section 4 of the Act ?
(iii) Whether the petitioners, while serving out prescriptions for individual cases, can be said to be manufacturers ?
The answers to questions (i) and (ii) will depend upon the answer to question (iii) and the opinion with respect to the meaning and effect of clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act.
Mr. Sinha, for the applicants, conceded that a manufacturing chemist, who makes up specific medicines in considerable quantities for sale to members of the public at large, is a manufacturer, but, he contended that the dispensing of a doctor's prescription for one patient is not manufacturer, but is preparing for one person a drug or combining two or more drugs into a convenient form to be taken or used by a person according to a doctor's direction.
On behalf of the Board, the Advocate-General argued that the preparation of a doctor's prescription by a chemist is the manufacture of a medicine. He referred to the observations of Abbott, C.J., in The King v. Wheeler, (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 345, 349; 106 E.R. 392, where he said that -
"the word 'manufacture' has been generally understood to denote either a thing made, which is useful for its own sake, and vendible as such, as a medicine, a stove, a telescope, and many others."
He referred, also to Section 41, sub-section (1), of the English Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, (3 & 4 Geo. VI c. 48) wherein "manufacturer" is defined as -
"a person who carries on in the United Kingdom a business of making goods or of applying any process in the course of making of goods, so however that for the purposes of this
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.