STATE OF GUJARAT versus CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.
(Civil Appeal No.7322 of 2021)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969: Entry 25 of Schedule I, Entry
26(1) of Schedule II Part A – Product “KADIPROL” sold by the
assessee – Classification as, Poultry Feed under Entry 25 of
Schedule I or as a Drug and Medicine under Entry 26(1) of Schedule
II Part A – Assessee classified the product as poultry feed whereas
the Department held that it should be classified as drug and medicine
– Order passed by the High Court that Kadiprol would be classified
as poultry feed – On appeal, held: In the judgment passed by the
High Court there was no detailed and in-depth examination of the
facts – Though the matter would have been remitted to the High
Court for decision afresh but since the issue is in the academic
interest and there is no revenue implication, present proceedings
closed keeping the larger question on the Common Parlance Test
open, to be considered in an appropriate case.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is noticed that the product in question
KADIPROL was sold in a sachet/packet of 100 gm. It was not
meant to be given as a food to the poultry. It was required to be
mixed with the feed given to the poultry/birds. It cannot be
directly fed and/or given to the birds. Therefore, there is some
merit in the submission of the Revenue that the impugned
judgment and order does not deal with the reasoning given by
the tribunal. Therefore, usually in the said background, the matter
would have been remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision.
However, there is no inclination to pass an order of this nature
as it is accepted that the issue in question is of academic interest
and even if the appeal is decided in favour of the Revenue, it
would not have any revenue implication as there are no tax dues.
In view of the above facts, the present proceedings are closed
keeping the larger question on the Common Parlance Test open,
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 819
819
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
to be considered in an appropriate case in a like matter. [Para 7,
8][828-F-H; 829-A-B]
State of Gujarat v. M/s. Pfizer (India) Ltd.; Glaxo
Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1979) 43
STC 386 (Guj); Eskayef Limited v. Collector of Central
Excise (1990) 4 SCC 680 : [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 442;
Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India 1989 (22) ECC 311; State
of Gujarat v. Pfizer Ltd. (1991) 82 STC 374 (Guj); Sun
Export Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay
(1997) 6 SCC 564 : [1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 434; M/s.
Golden Streak Drug & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Lucknow
v. Commissioner Trade Tax Lucknow 2017-TIOL-2502-
HC-ALL-CT; Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v.
Krishna Carbon Paper Co. (1989) 1 SCC 150 : [1988]
3 Suppl. SCR 12; Plasmac Machine Manufacturing
Company Private Limited v. Collector of  Central Excise,
Bombay (1992) 84 STC 107 (SC) : [1990] 3 Suppl.
SCR 384; Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai
v. Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 1
: [2018] 7 SCR 1191 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 442
referred to
Para 4.7
[1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 434
referred to
Para 5.4, 5.8
[1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 12
referred to
Para 5.6
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 384
referred to
Para 5.6
[2018] 7 SCR 1191
referred to
Para 5.8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7322
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2016 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Sales Tax Reference No.4 of 2005.
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ms. Kavita Jha, Shammi Kapoor, Ms. Swati Agarwal, Udit Naresh,
Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat, at
Ahmedabad in STR No.4 of 2005 by which the High Court has answered
the reference in favour of the respondent – assessee – dealer holding
that the product “KADIPROL” sold by the respondent can be
categorized as “Poultry Feed” falling under Entry 25 of Schedule I of
the Gujarat Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “GST Act”) and
not as a “Drug and Medicine” under Entry 26(1) of Schedule II Part A
of the GST Act, the State of Gujarat has preferred the present Appeal.
2. At the outset it is required to be noted that the present proceeding
arise out of the Determination Order passed by the Deputy Commission
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.