HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.29 OF 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax for the petitioner and Mr.Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The challenge in this tax revision case is to the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A.No.369 of 2004.

3. The point for consideration before this Court is as to whether the product from the respondent organization viz., and Phenyl and antiseptic lotions are medicated products under entry 37 of the First Schedule or falling under the exclusion of item 37 of First Schedule to the APGST Act.

4. Perusal of the record would go to show that the Tribunal while deciding the said issue was relied on the judgment of M/s.Heinz India Private Limited v.State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 47 APSTJ wherein the Tribnunal observed that the medicated good for which licence is not necessary, they would fall under Drugs and Medicines under Entry 37 of the First Schedule, for which tax is leviable at 10% only. Further the Tribunal while dealing with Dettol Antiseptic Lotion in Aackitt Piramal Limited, Vijayawada v. State of Andhra Pradesh observed as under:

“ As seen from the definition of ‘Drug’ contained in Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, ‘Drug’ includes all medicines for internal or external use on human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes. Dettol is being used for external application on the human body to prevent infection. Therefore, it cannot be said that drug does not include Dettol. Dettol does not fall under Exclusions (a) or (c) of Entry 37. Dettol is to be treated as an item falling under Entry 37 and is to be assessed accordingly.”

5. The Tribunal by relying on the above two decisions observed that where drugs licence was obtained under Drugs and Medicines Act, 1940 manufactured and dealt under the said licence having medicinal values, such products would fall under Entry 37 directly, which shall be treated as medicines and where the products are manufactured with medicinal qualities, for which no licence is required, such goods would fall under exclusion clause of entry 37, such as medicated shampoos, medicated soaps, medicated tooth

2 (2004) 38 APSTJ 54

paste etc., and therefore, antiseptic lotion dealt by the respondent would not fall under exclusion clause 37 but eligible to tax at 10% only. Therefore, there is no material available on record to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal.

6. Apart from the above, we are also not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the reason that the issue already stands decided by this High Court again in a batch of tax revision cases of similar nature in TREVC Nos.155 of 2004 and batch decided on 14.06.2024, wherein this Court held as under:

“Taking into account the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Himani Ltd. v. Comm. Of Commercial Tax [2011 (2631) E.L.T. 335 (All.) and the common parlance test, it is clear that the public perceives products like Himan Boroplus Prickly Heat Powder as medicinal or Ayurvedic products rather than mere cosmetics. Furthermore, the Advance Ruling sought by the assessee before the Guwahati Commercial Taxes Department, which was later upheld by the Gauhati High Court in Emami Limited and Another vs.

State of Assam and Another adds more weight to this classification.

In view of these observations and legal precedents, it is concluded that Himani Boroplus Prickly Heat Powder has been rightly classified under Entry 37 in Schedule 1st of the APGST A