Skip to content


Sadhu V. Narayanaswami Pillai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 60 to 65 of 1972
Judge
Reported in[1977]39STC307(Mad)
AppellantSadhu V. Narayanaswami Pillai
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu
Appellant AdvocateC. Natarajan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.S. Bakthavathsalam, the Additional Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - the assessee contested the assessments before the appellate assistant commissioner and, being unsuccessful there, further took up the matter on appeal to the sales tax appellate tribunal. under these circumstances, the order of the tribunal is valid in law and hence these tax revision cases fail and are dismissed with costs of the respondent......by g.o.p. no. 21, revenue, dated 5th january, 1965., which exempts the sales of the following :sales of medicines by hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries, run by the government or by the medical practitioners themselves or by paid medical practitioners and which are dispensing medicines to their patients only whether consultation fee is charged or not.3. a proper construction of the government order would show that it is only the sales by hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries which are selling medicines to their patients only, that are covered by the terms of the government order and if such hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries sell medicines to others in addition to or independent of their patients, such cases will not come within the scope of the government order. in.....
Judgment:

Sethuraman, J.

1. These tax revision cases relate to the assessment years 1961-62, 1964-65, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Sidha Vaidya and is the proprietor of Raja Rajeswari Sidha Vaidya Salai. It has its office at Triplicane and also an Oushadalaya at Vayapathi, Mamandoor Village, Chingleput District. The assessing authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act treated the assessee as a dealer in Sidha medicines, tooth-paste, hair-oil, etc. and treated the receipts by him from the sales of such medicines, etc., as turnover exigible to tax under the provisions of the Act. The assessee contested the assessments before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, being unsuccessful there, further took up the matter on appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal in its common order dated 8th February, 1972, dismissed the appeals and allowed the enhancement petition filed for the assessment year 1964-65. As far as 1964-65 was concerned, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had granted relief to the assessee in a sum of Rs. 354.74 at the rate of six per cent and Rs. 6,130.65 at 2 per cent. This relief was on the construction of a Government Order dated 11th August, 1961, to which we shall make reference presently. The Tribunal held that the allowance of relief on the basis of the Government Order was wrongly made. It is these assessments as sustained by the Tribunal that are now contested in the present revision cases.

2. In the course of argument, reference was made to a Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 976, Revenue, dated 28th March, 1959, as amended by G.O.P. No. 21, Revenue, dated 5th January, 1965., which exempts the sales of the following :

Sales of medicines by hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries, run by the Government or by the medical practitioners themselves or by paid medical practitioners and which are dispensing medicines to their patients only whether consultation fee is charged or not.

3. A proper construction of the Government Order would show that it is only the sales by hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries which are selling medicines to their patients only, that are covered by the terms of the Government Order and if such hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries sell medicines to others in addition to or independent of their patients, such cases will not come within the scope of the Government Order. In this case, it was found and was established that the assessee had been selling his medicines, etc., to strangers in addition to his patients. Consequently, the case of the assessee does not fall within the scope of the Government Order.

4. The Tribunal itself in its order has pointed out that the assessee had not questioned the quantum of the turnover determined by the assessing authorities before it. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is valid in law and hence these tax revision cases fail and are dismissed with costs of the respondent. Counsel's fee Rs. 250 one set.


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