The central legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for classifying products as ayurvedic medicines, emphasizing the need for a valid drug license and conformity to formulations prescribed by authoritative books of Ayurvedic medicines.

[Per: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.]

These four revisions, are filed by Commissioner Trade Tax I Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, under Section 55 read with Section 80 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and directed against the order dated 17-08-2007, passed by Chairman, Trade Tax Tribunal, in Second Appeal No. 74 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 75 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 76 of 2007 and Second Appeal No. 77 of 2007, which are allowed by said authority by a common judgment challenged in these revisions.

2. In all these four revisions, question of law involved is as under :1. Whether "Chlormint Candy", "Chlormint Gum", "Chlormint Ice", "Chlormint Ice Gum", "Chlormint with Harbasole", "Happydent': "Gum Draggy': "Chewable Gum Draggy" and "Chatar Patar': are wrongly held to be ayurvedic medicine by Trade Tax Tribunal?

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent I assessee M/s Perfeti Van (India) Pvt. Ltd., is registered under Uttaranchal Value Added Tax, Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as Uttaranchal VAT Act) for doing business of manufacturing and selling of ayurvedic medicines and confectionary items. The dispute relates to the assessment for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, for which assessee submitted its monthly returns in form 3 on 23-05-2006, 24-06-2006, 27-07-2006 and 23-08-2006 respectively. The sale for• said four months were shown in the return of the items manufactured and produced by the assessee amounting to Rs. 97,34,613.00, 90,75,226.00, Rs.89,47,046.00 and Rs. 78,28,978.00. Out of said amount for the aforesaid four months, sales made through C.S.D. canteens were exempted from trade tax to the tune of Rs. 16,935.00, Rs. 9,072.00, Rs. 14,818.00 and Rs. 6,451.00. Apart from this, sales of items - "Chloromint" "Happydent" and Chatar-Patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, were shown as Rs. 5,57,432.00, Rs. 5,17,019.00, Rs.3,66,212.00 and Rs. 5,98,765.00 but only 4% of tax was deposited on these sales and rest 8.5% tax was deposited 'under Protest'. The case of the revisionist is that "Chlormint Candy", "Chloromint Gum", "Chloromint Ice", Chloromint Ice Gum", "Happydent" and "Chatar Patar" are confectionary items and tax payable on said items is 12.5% and 4%, which is applicable to the ayurvedic medicines and as such, the tax is not payable on said items is at the rate of 4%, which is applicable to the ayurvedic medicines. The case of assessee I respondent is that the aforesaid items are ayurvedic medicines and as such, the tax is payable on said items at the rate of 4%. The Assising Officer, the First Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax, rejected the assessee's contention and held that the items manufactured and sold by the assessee are confectionary items and not ayurvedic medical preparations. Aggrieved by said judgment, the aforesaid four appeals were filed by the Assessee before the Trade Tax Tribunal, who accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the four appeals. Hence these revisions.

5. Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that "Chlormint Candy", "Chloromint Gum", "Chloromint Ice", Chloromint Ice Gum", "Chloromint with Herbasole", "Happydent" "Gum Draggy", "Chewing Gum Draggy" and "Chatar-Patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee, are not ayurvedic medicines but only confectionary preparations. He further argued that the items in the common parlance are not used as medicines but purchased by the customers for taste. On the other hand, Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Sr. Advocate, representing the assessee, contended that the aforesaid preparations are ayurvedic medicines, as the products in question have medicinal use and utility.

6. Before further discussion, we think it proper to mention the relevant provisions of law, applicable to the case. Section4 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which perta