ADBYAKSHA MATHUR BABUS SAKTI OUSHADHALAYA DACCA PRIVATE LIMITED NARESH CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA IN ALL PETITIONS :UNION OF INDIA IN ALL PETITIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THESE six petitions under Art. 32 of theconstitution raise a common point and will be dealt withtogether. The main question raised in all these petitionsis whether the State-Governments are entitled to tax the'three Ayurvedic preparations, namely Mirtasanjibani,Mritasanjibani Sudha and Mritasanjibani Sura, which aremanufactured by these petitioners, under the various ExciseAct in force in the respective States. Further points wereraised in the petitions as regards the validity of therestrictions imposed in the matter of the import, export,Possession and sale of these three Ayurvedic preparations.But the learned counsel for the petitioners stated before usthat he was not pressing any other point except one viz.,whether the various State-Governments could tax these threeAyurvedic preparations under the various Excise Acts inforce in the States concerned. We propose therefore to dealwith this point only in the present cases.

(3.) THE petitioners further say that though r. 68 of the Rulesprovides for a Standing Committee to advise the centralGovt. on all matters connected with the technical aspects ofthe administration of theAct and the Rules, and in particular, on the questionwhether (i) a particular preparation is entitled to betreated, or to continue to be treated, as a genuinemedicinal or toilet preparation for the purposes of the Act,and (ii) if so, whether it should be treated, or continue tobe treated, as a restricted or an unrestricted preparations,it was not open to the said Committee even if it wasconsulted in this matter to advise the government that thesethree preparations were not medicinal preparations, if infact they are medicinal preparations as defined in s. 2 (g).It is therefore urged that even if the central governmentacted on the advice of the Standing Committee when itomitted these three preparations from the list appended tothe Rules, it had no power to do so if these three prepara-tions are in fact medicinal preparations within the meaningof s. 2 (g) of the Act. The petitioners therefore pray foran appropriate writ, direction or order directing theCentral government not to give effect to the notificationsof August and December 1960, removing these threepreparations from the list appended to the Rules and alsofor a direction to the State-Governments not to levy duty onthese preparations under the respective Excise Acts in forcein the various States and prohibiting the State-Governmentsfrom collecting duties of excise on the said medicinalpreparations in excess of the rates fixed by the Act and torefund the amounts of duty already collected in excess ofthat rate.