Back
SHEKHAR B. SARAF
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Emami Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
1. The instant revision petitions have been preferred by The Commissioner, Commercial Tax (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revisionist’) under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the orders dated June 8, 2018, October 8, 2018, October 8, 2018, July 17, 2020, November 1, 2022 and April 28, 2023, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). All the revision petitions involve the common question of law as to whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that Boro-Plus Antiseptic Cream (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPAC’) is a medicated ointment and covered under entry no. 41 of Schedule II Part (A).
2. As the issue involved in all the revision petitions is common, the said petitions are being decided by a common order.
3. The factual matrix in all the revision applications is also similar. Accordingly, I have outlined the factual matrix of only one case (STRE No. 274 of 2018) below:
The classification of products for tax purposes must reflect their intrinsic properties and intended use, with the burden of proof resting on the party challenging established classifications.
Dettol can be said to be an item of medicament to be treated as a drug and medicine – Use is a relevant consideration.
Products classified as medicinal must demonstrate intended use for treatment; hence, after shave lotions are toilet preparations, subject to excise duties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
