High CourtsDivision Bench(2014) 01 OHC CK 0073

State vs Tata Pharma

Orissa High Court · Decided on 21 January 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Goel, C.J · Akshaya Kumar Rath, J
CASE NUMBER
S.T.R.E.V. No. 74 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 346 words
1.

This petition has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal proposing the following question of law.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that "Quinross" is a tax free item under Entry-27 of the Tax Free List even though the same is not included in the said list?

2.

The dealer is carrying on business of medicines. The Assessing Officer sought to tax the turnover relating to sale of ''Quinross'' syrup, tablets and injections which the dealer claimed to be falling under the tax free articles under Entry-27 of the exempted list. The entry is as follows:--

Quinine, Chinchone febrifuge, Chloroquine, Primaquine, Daraprin and Induline.

3.

The Appellate Authority upheld the plea of the dealer that chloroquine is a generic term which covers the brand name of quinross. The Appellate Authority observed as follows:--

...It is seen that the book entitled C.I.M.S. of Medical Speciality provides among other things that "Chloroquine" covers the following brand name of different Companies

(i) Emichin Plus

(ii) Emquin

(iii) Laquin

(iv) Emberbrin

(v) Nivaquin

(vi) Resochin &

(vii) Quinross

So this indicates that, quinross is nothing but chloroquine which is generic term of quinine. It is also seen from the Company''s Literature that quinross contains chloroquine, Phosphate I.P. 65.5 mg. and this compound is highly effective as an anti-malaria agent, so this is being the factual position basing on literature and books and scientific analysis, consider that, quinross and chloroquine are not different products, hence it is considered that quinross being chloroquine is Tax Free as per entry 27 of the Tax free list, so the Assessment fails....

4.

The above view has been upheld by the Tribunal.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue.

6.

In view of the clear finding recorded concurrently by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal based on literature that ''chloroquine'' covers ''quinross'', the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous.

7.

No question of law arises.

8.

The petition is dismissed.