2016 (12) TMI 1257 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sale transaction or service - VAT liability or service tax - treatment to an indoor patient - medicines consumed on treatment of indoor patient would attract tax liability or not? - the case of Hindustan Lever Limited 2016 (7) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT referred - Held that - in the case referred it was found that the consideration of sales tax in fixing the price of the goods and sale of such goods along with identical goods on which taxes are collected along with price has not resulted in an implied collection of tax in respect of such sales tax exempted goods also - Whether they would govern the set of facts brought before us in the present matter has to be determined at the hearing of the appeal. Equally, whether this is a case on par with a treatment during the course of which a stent is inserted in the body or not should equally be determined at the stage of final hearing. Whether drugs or medicines sold from the pharmacy and the case of a stent being fixed or inserted in the body are similar or not must be determined by the Tribunal - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order by Sales Tax Tribunal on stay application regarding VAT appeal, determination of part payment amount, inclusion of interest, interpretation of maximum retail price for medicines, reliance on legal judgments, consideration of tax component in maximum retail price, determination of sale transaction during treatment, reliance on Supreme Court dictum, comparison with similar cases, dismissal of appeal, extension of time for depositing amount, priority in deciding similar cases.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal challenging an order by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal regarding a Value Added Tax (VAT) appeal. The Tribunal had determined a part payment amount against an Assessment Order from 2011-2012, reducing it from the amount fixed by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal deleted the interest component and set the part payment at a specific sum. The Tribunal found that the tax component was included in the maximum retail price of medicines, leading to the prima facie conclusion that a sale had occurred during treatment. The appellant argued that this interpretation was erroneous and relied on legal judgments to support their case. The Court reviewed the submissions and found the Tribunal's findings to be tentative and not conclusive, stating that they would not influence the final determination. The Court emphasized that the final hearing stage would allow for a more in-depth analysis of relevant legal precedents and comparisons with similar cases.

The Court highlighted the importance of a complete set of materials for making conclusive remarks and noted that the Tribunal had not been required to do so at the initial stage. The Court dismissed the appeal, extending the time for depositing the amount and urging the First Appellate Authority to prioritize similar cases involving hospitals and medical treatments. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious decision-making in such matters without setting a specific time limit but expecting a resolution within three months from the date of the order. The judgment underscored the complexities involved in determining tax components in transactions during medical treatments and the significance of thorough legal analysis in such cases.