JUDGMENT
M. Rama Jois, J.
1. In these two revision petitions presented under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1976 (“the Act” for short) by the same assessee, the following question of law arises for consideration :
“Whether herbs, roots and barks of trees could be regarded as medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling under entry 41 of the Second Schedule to the Act ?”
2. Brief facts of the case are these : The assessee is a dealer in dried herbs, roots and barks of various types of trees which are drugs used for curing certain types of diseases. The assessment years are 1979-80 and 1980-81. Before the assessing authority the plea of the petitioner was that the goods sold by the petitioner were general goods falling under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act attracting sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent. The assessing authority accepted the plea of the petitioner and assessed the petitioner to sales tax under the Act on that basis.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) being of the view that the order of the assessing authority was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, initiated action under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act. He issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the turnover relating to the aforesaid items should not be taxed at the higher rate prescribed in respect of entry 41 of the Second Schedule. The said entry prescribed 8 per cent tax for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. In his reply, the assessee contended that the goods which the petitioner had sold were not medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations and therefore entry 41 of the Second Schedule was not attracted. The Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the plea of the petitioner and brought the turnover to tax holding that the goods sold by the assessee fall under entry 41 of the Second Schedule. The matter was taken up in appeal by the assessee before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The same contention was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the said contention and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has presented these revision petitions.
4. There is no dispute as to the goods which the petitioner had sold. They were herbs, roots and barks of trees. There is also no dispute that these are drugs and used as such by the purchasers. But the contention of the petitioner has been that the goods can be brought under entry 41 of the Second Schedule, if only they can be regarded as medicinal and/or pharmaceutical preparations. Elaborating the point, Sri Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is only when a medicinal preparation is brought into existence by any particular process by using any raw materials which could be herbs, roots and barks, such goods manufactured or prepared could be brought under entry 41 of the Second Schedule and as far as the goods sold by the petitioner are concerned they are not medicinal preparations.
5. As against this, Sri H. L. Dattu, learned counsel for the State, contended that as admittedly the goods sold by the petitioner are used as country-drugs, the view taken by the Tribunal that the goods fall under entry 41 of the Second Schedule was correct. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Gramodyog Karyalaya [1979] 44 STC 270. In the said case, the question for consideration before the Allahabad High Court was as to whether “jari booti” a medicinal herb sold by the assessee in the said case could be regarded as general goods or as special goods falling under the heading “Medicine”. The Allahabad High Court held that as undisputedly “jari booti” was used as a medicine it fell under special entry “medicine” though the word medicine has not been statutorily defined. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court is of no assistance to the respondent in these cases. If entry 41 read only as “medicine” there would have been force in the contention of the respondent that the goods in question fall under that entry. But in the Karnataka Act, the Legislature has designedly used the words “medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations”. It is difficult to agree that a vegetable product like dried herb, roots and barks even though they are of medicinal value are medicinal preparations. Any item of goods, in order to fall under medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations, whether ayurvedic or allopathic must be a separate and identifiable medicinal preparation prepared out of raw materials. A settled principle in the interpretation of an entry in a sales tax law is, it should be given the same meaning which it has at common parlance. Herbs, roots and barks at common parlance are drugs/medicines, but not medicinal preparations. Therefore, we answer the question arising for our consideration thus :
“Herbs, roots and barks of trees cannot be regarded as medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling under entry 41 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.”
6. In the light of the above answer, we make the following order :
(i) Revision petitions are allowed.
(ii) The orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and of the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. The order of the assessing authority is restored.
7. Petitions allowed.