DEYS MEDICAL STORES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act"). The first two revisions, i.e., Revision No. 2 of 1997 (assessment year 1983-84), and Revision No. 5 of 1997 (assessment year 1988-89) are by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., and the third Revision No. 147 of 1999 (assessment year 1983-84) is by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd. Both are sister concerns and have their registered and head offices at Calcutta, where they have their factories in which medicines are manufactured and then sold through their various sales offices throughout India.

(2.) In Revision Nos. 2 of 1997 and 5 of 1997 there is one common question of law as to whether Keo Karpin brand hair vitaliser and baby oil manufactured by the applicants are medicines or cosmetics. Another common question of law involved in Revision No. 2 of 1997 filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd. and Revision No. 147 of 1999 filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd., both of which are in respect of assessment years 1983-84 is whether quantity discount claimed by the applicants under Rule 44 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act is allowable to them or not. In the two revisions filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., another question raised by them is whether they were liable to pay tax on a turnover of Rs. 27,268 in respect of credit notes for the assessment year 1983-84 and whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally competent to re-impose tax on a turnover of Rs. 8,642.98, which was quashed by the first appellate authority but who did not allow only additional tax thereon, when no second appeal was filed by the department against it in the Tribunal. Similarly, in Revision No. 147 of 1999 filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd., the first question of law raised is in respect of quantity discount as in Revision No. 2 of 1997 of M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., and also that they were entitled to reduction of tax on a turnover of Rs. 10,128.16 in respect of "refused consignments", which was not allowed to them at all levels.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant Sri V.N. Tandon, Advocate, vehemently argued these revisions along with other seven revisions of these applicants, and invited my attention to a number of rulings on the points and has also given written submissions. The learned Standing Counsel Sri Rajeev Sharma, who appeared for the opposite party, also has given written submissions, which all have been perused and considered by me.