STATE OF ASSAM Vs. NARECHANDRA GHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The medicinal preparation 'mritasaniibani' manufactured by the respondent was assessed to sales-tax under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act by the assessing authorities. The challenge to the said assessment order being dismissed by the appellate authority, the respondents filed 3 writ petitions before a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court which, while allowing the said writ petitions, declared the said Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The State of Assam is in appeal before us, challenging the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court made in Civil Rule Nos, 368, 369 of 1978 and 310 of 1982 dated 11.4.1990.

(2.) The High Court while entertaining the abovesaid writ petitions, considered the following 3 arguments of the respondents and held the same against them : 1. That no spirit being used in the preparation of Mritasanjibani, it cannot be termed as "spirituous medicinal preparation"; 2. That there being no Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in existence, in the absence of any machinery to determine the alcoholic contents of a medicinal preparation, Item 67 cannot be given effect to; 3. That there is no finding in the instant case that Mritasanjibani contains more than 12% alcohol. However, it proceeded to consider the constitutional validity of Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act, as stated above, and following the judgment of this Court in Ayurveda Pharmacy and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, it declared Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and directed the assessing authorities to re-assess the turnover of the respondent by treating 'mritasanjibani' as all other Ayurvedic medicines which are exempt from sales-tax under the Act.

(3.) The State in these appeals has contended that the finding of the High Court that the said Item of the Schedule is violative of Article 14 is erroneous. It was also contended that the judgment of this Court in Ayurueda Pharmacy (supra) does not apply to the facts of the case in hand, hence the High Court has erred in placing reliance on the said judgment. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the judgment of this Court in Ayurueda Pharmacy (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of this case.