Skip to content


Dr. Baldev Raj Vs. the State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberL.P.A. No. 503 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1969]24STC173(P& H)
AppellantDr. Baldev Raj
RespondentThe State of Punjab and anr.
Appellant Advocate G.C. Mittal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate D.C. Ahluwalia, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredU.P. v. Dr. Sukh Deo
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........suo motu action taken by this officer and he had set aside the appellate order of the additional deputy excise and taxation commissioner, punjab, patiala (copy annexure 'a' to the petition) dated the 9th december, 1964. in that order the deputy excise and taxation commissioner had held that the appellant was not a chemist and he could not, therefore, be termed as a manufacturer of medicines which may be sold to the public at large. in this aspect of the matter, the appellant could not be termed to be a dealer. the additional deputy excise and taxation commissioner in coming to this conclusion had followed the judgment of the allahabad high court in the case of dr. sukh deo v. commissioner of sales tax, lucknow [1963] 14 s.t.c. 581 that the preparation of medicines in the prescription.....
Judgment:

S.B. Capoor, J.

1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated the 30th August, 1968, whereby the writ petition of Dr. Baldev Raj, the appellant, was dismissed.

2. In that writ petition the appellant had challenged the order dated the 17th January, 1966, passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, in exercise of the powers under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 ; this order is copy annexure 'B' to the petition. This order was in pursuance of the suo motu action taken by this officer and he had set aside the appellate order of the Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala (copy annexure 'A' to the petition) dated the 9th December, 1964. In that order the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner had held that the appellant was not a chemist and he could not, therefore, be termed as a manufacturer of medicines which may be sold to the public at large. In this aspect of the matter, the appellant could not be termed to be a dealer. The Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in coming to this conclusion had followed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Sukh Deo v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow [1963] 14 S.T.C. 581 that the preparation of medicines in the prescription of the assessee did not amount to manufacture of medicines and pharmaceutical preparations within the meaning of the notification.

3. Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant, has brought to our notice that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2458 of 1966, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dr. Sukh Deo [1969] 23 S.T.C. 385 has upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This means that the decision given by the Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, was a correct decision in the case and so the impugned order of the 17th January, 1966, by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, has to be quashed.

4. In the result, the Letters Patent appeal is allowed and the order of the Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala, restored and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.

5. There will be no order as to costs.

R.S. Narula, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //