RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 13.07.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.10700/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the demand notices dated 08.02.2005 and 13.06.2005 (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the impugned notices' and separately referred to as 'the impugned notice') issued by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (respondent no.3).

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are as under:

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant company was only a dealer with respect to the formulations sold under the brand name Roscilox and thus, was outside the ambit of paragraph no. 13 of the DPCO, 1995. It was submitted that the power of the Government to require deposit of the overcharged amount was not applicable to dealers as the Government could only require manufacturers, importers or distributors to deposit the overcharged amount. It was contended that as the appellant was neither a manufacturer nor a distributor, the demand made on the appellant was without authority of law. The appellant also relied on the definitions of 'dealer' and 'distributor' as contained in clauses (d) and (e) of paragraph no.2 of DPCO, 1995.