CADBURY INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

(2.) This revision, under Sec. 55 (i) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, is preferred by the assessee against the common order dtd. 31/10/2012 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Second Appeal Nos.31 and 32 of 2012 relating to the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Second appeals before the Tribunal were filed against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal)-II who, while affirming the order in appeal passed by the Assessing Authority, held that 'Halls' (the products manufactured by the petitioner) was a confectionary, and not an Ayurvedic medicine.

(3.) In the order under revision, the Tribunal referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Trade TaxCommercial Tax, Dehradun vs. Ms Perfetti Van Melle (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rishikesh; 2008 NTN (Vol.38)-211; the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Associated Distributors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2002 UPTC 173; and the order of the Madras High Court in Ms Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (CT), (order in Writ Petition No.21346 of 2007 dtd. 1/7/2009), and held that the items under dispute, i.e. different flavours of 'Halls', could not be treated as proprietary Ayurvedic medicine so as to fall within the category of drugs, medicine and pharmaceutical preparations etc. enumerated under Items No.41 of Schedule II (B) of the Act; and the assessee was liable to be taxed @12.5% on every point of sale. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (A) and Assessing Authority were affirmed. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed.