JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision applications raised similar question of law and, accordingly, are decided by this common judgment. The revisionist sold "Jeeva soap" manufactured by it. The word "Jeeva" appears to be the brand name of the revisionist. While, therefore, selling "Jeeva soap", it represented to its intending buyers that it is selling a soap, in which it has a brand name "Jeeva". It may have had represented that "Jeeva soap" has ayurvedic medicinal properties, but it never represented that it is selling "Jeeva soap" as an ayurvedic medicine. At the relevant time, there was an entry for charging trade tax expressed by the words "soap other than washing soap". In terms of the said entry, any soap other than washing soap will be covered thereby. That carried tax payable at the rate 12 per cent. During the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-2004, revisionist claimed and such claim was accepted by the assessing officer that in respect of sale of "Jeeva soap", revisionist is liable to pay eight per cent tax. Later, the matter was re-opened under section 21 of the Trade Tax Act and the revisionist was made liable to pay 12 per cent tax. The contention of the revisionist before the appellate authority was that "Jeeva soap" is not a soap, but is an ayurvedic medicine. Though, such a contention was put forward, but it was never represented before the appellate authority or before the Tribunal that the revisionist while selling "Jeeva soap", made a representation that it is an ayurvedic medicine and not a soap. The appellate authority upheld the order of the assessing officer and the same has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Before us, it is being contended that for manufacturing "Jeeva soap", revisionist has obtained a drug licence. Such a licence was required in order to entitle the revisionist to manufacture pharmaceutical preparations. It was contended that while manufacturing "Jeeva soap", the revisionist was manufacturing nothing but pharmaceutical preparations and, for pharmaceutical preparations, the tax liability was to the extent of eight per cent only. Manufacturing of pharmaceutical preparations is one thing and selling of pharmaceutical preparations is another thing. A person, having had manufactured a pharmaceutical preparation, may represent to a prospective buyers that only a pharmaceutical preparation is being sold, but as aforesaid, even before us, there is no assertion that the revisionist held out to its prospective buyers that it is selling only a pharmaceutical preparation. On the other hand, by branding its branded product "Jeeva" as a soap, it held out to its prospective buyers that the revisionist is selling nothing but a soap and there being no contention that "Jeeva soap" is not a "washing soap", the same would be covered by the entry "soap other than washing soap" attracting sales tax liability of 12 per cent.

(2.) We, accordingly, refuse to interfere with the revisions. The revision applications fail and the same are dismissed.