M/S. SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 29-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
M/S. SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 1996 
(S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: · 
Article 32, 226-Supreme Court's decision that certain aywvedic 
medicinal preparations not to be taxed under Excise Acts in force in the 
C 
State~But to be taxed only in accordance with the provisions of the Toilet 
preparations (Excise Duties) Act-As regards claim for refund it was directed 
that the petitioners can take up the matter with the State Govemments in 
accordance with law-When one of the petitioners approached the State 
Govemment, its claim was rejected after 11 years without giving reasons 
therefore-77iereafter it filed Writ petition in the High Court and it held that D 
what the petitioner sought to obtain was only a money decree and it could 
not be allowed--f'etitioner was pennitted by the High Court to file a suit to 
recover the amoum-On appeal held : Respondent-State was obliged by the 
Supreme Court's order to refund to the writ petitioners the amounts collected 
from them in the f 01111 of levy that was held to be illegal-Not to have 
responded to the refund claim for 11 years and then to have rejected it without 
giving reason is to have acted disrespectfully to this Cowt--Even if the wiit 
petition was filed only for money it fell outside the ordinary stream of wlit 
petitions and the High Cowt should have ordered refwui-Respondent State's 
order refusing refund quashed-Respondent State to refund the amount with 
interest at 12% from 1.1.63 till payment of realisation. 
Adhyaksha Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (P) Ltd. & Ors. 
v. Union of India, [1963] 3 SCR 957; Salonah Tea Company Ltd. v. Super-
intendent of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. Etc.; [1908] 2 S<:;R 474 and Suganmul 
E 
F 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR (1965) SC (1740) = (1965) 56 ITR G 
84, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 
1981. 
.From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.77 of the Patna High Court H 
347 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
in C.W.J.C. No. 1827 of 1974. 
B 
c 
Yogeshwar Prasad, P.K. Bajaj, Dr. J.P. Singh and Ms. Rani Chhabra 
for the Appellant. 
D. Goburdhan for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In Adhyakslw Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (P) Ltd. & 
Ors. v. Union of India, [1963) 3 SCR 957, the main question raised and 
argued in writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution was whether 
State Governments were entitled to tax three ayurvedic preparations, 
. namely, Mritasanjibani, Mritasanjibani Sudha and Mritasanjibani Sura, 
under the Excise Acts in force in the respective States. A Constitution 
·Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the said medicinal 
preparations could not be taxed under the Excise Acts in force in the States 
D and that they could be taxed only in accordance with the provisions of the 
Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act. This Court stated 
that it passed "no order as to the claim for refund for that is a matter which 
the petitioners can take up with the State Governments concerned accord-
ing to law". The judgment was delivered on 7th September, 1962. 
E 
F 
The appellants were one of the many writ petitioners before the 
Court. (Their Writ Petition was No. 354 of 1961). They were, therefore, 
thus empowered to take up with the respondent-State their claim for 
refund, and they did so on 17th October, 1962. It is the case of the 
respondent-State itself that it rejected the claim for refund on 29th Novem-
ber, 1973, and communicated the rejection to the appellant on 7th Decem-
ber, 1973. The letter of 7th December, 1973, gave no reasons for the 
rejection. 
Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court at 
G Patna to quash the order of the respondent-State refusing to refund and 
to direct the respondent-State to make the refund. The refund that was 
prayed for was for the period 20th August 1960, to 30th September, 1962, 
in the sum of Rs. 91,723.80. the principal contention in the counter-affidavit 
filed by the respondent-State and raised at the hearing was that the writ 
petition was not maintainable in that the claim for refund could not be 
H determined in the writ jurisdiction. The High Court found that the writ 
l 
a: 
SHREEBAIDYANA111AYURVED BHAWAN (P)LTD. v. STATE 
349 
petition, in essence, sought to obtain only a money decree and this could A 
not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.