Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en adverted to, what of considered by the assessing authority. The assessing authority merely seems to have proceeded on its own ipse dixit. That was mechanically dittoed by the appellate authority in its order dated October 30, 1996. - Further the product in issue was manufactured under a licence issued under the Act of 1940 and had prophylactic qualities, protecting children from rickets and checking vitamin A and E deficiency in them, entitling it to be classified as a medicine/drug. - no force in the challenge to the impugned order dated February 20, 2001, passed by the Tax Board - Decided against Revenue. - S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 37 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2014 - ALOK SHARMA J. Babu Singh, OIC, for the petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s differential tax and interest thereon. The assessee thereupon invoked its statutory right to a second appeal before the Tax Board, Ajmer. Relying upon an earlier judgment by the then extant Rajasthan Tax Tribunal, the Tax Board held that Keo Karpin Baby Oil was a medicine/drug and therefore exigible to tax at six per cent. advalorem. The orders of the assessing authority as also the appellate authority holding to the contrary were set aside. The Department is consequentially in revision under section 86 of the Act of 1994 before this court against the order dated February 20, 2001, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. Mr. Babu Singh, OIC appearing for the Department in the absence of the Department's advocate owing to the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing goods mentioned at item No. 71. 70. Perfumery (excluding agarbattis, dhoop and loban), cosmetics, shampoos, tooth paste and tooth powder (manjan) including 'lip pink', comb, brushes, all types of hair oil including refined or filtered coconut oil, razor and other shaving articles but excluding razor blades. 71. All types of facial creams including anti-septic creams whether ayurvedic, allopathic, homoeopathic or unani such as boroline, boroplus, boroquine, keo karpin, fair and lovely, prokin, naturally fair, curotine, himami's cold turmeric ayurvedi cream, cleartone, hand and baby lotions, electrically operated anti-mosquito devices and tablets used therein, room fresheners including those operated electrically or with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y sort with regard to the ingredients of the product sold or other aspects relating to its label and literature were even adverted to, what of considered by the assessing authority. The assessing authority merely seems to have proceeded on its own ipse dixit. That was mechanically dittoed by the appellate authority in its order dated October 30, 1996. The learned Tax Board has in its order dated February 20, 2001 relied on an early judgment of its superior authority, i.e., the then extant Rajasthan Tax Tribunal in holding that Keo Karpin Baby Oil was a medicine/drug and not a cosmetic and thus liable to be taxed accordingly at six per cent. ad valorem. Aside of the aforesaid a Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6; [2006] 3 SCC 1, the honourable Supreme Court has held as under (page 108 in 3 VST): 20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. The courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position. The reason why courts have held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not because of any principle of res jud .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates