M/S. Johnson And Johnon Limited vs Asst. Commissioner(Assessment) on 30 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 500 of 2009()


1. M/S. JOHNSON AND JOHNON LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASST. COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT)
                       ...       Respondent

2. AST. COMMISSIONER(AUDIT ASSESSMENT)

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSOM RODRIGUES

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :30/06/2009

 O R D E R
                C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                     K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                --------------------------------------------
                        R.P. No. 500 OF 2009
                                    in
                         O.T.A.NO. 8 OF 2008
                --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009

                               O R D E R

Ramachandran Nair,J.

Heard counsel appearing for the review petitioner and

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We do not notice

any mistake in the judgment warranting interference in review

proceedings. The very same arguments raised by the petitioner before

us while hearing the appeal are now raised in the Review Petition.

Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that compounding

rate at 4% on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was collected for the sale

of medicine only in Pharma Division and in other Divisions, petitioner

sold medicines under the VAT scheme, we are unable to accept the

contention because compounding under Section 8(e) is for the sale of

the product as a whole and not for sales from one Division alone.

Therefore when payment of tax under the scheme of compounding

under Section 8(e) is found by the Commissioner and confirmed by this

2

Court, entire turnover of medicine from all Divisions is assessable on

MRP at the rate of 4% as provided under Section 8(e) of the Act. Even

though counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme

Court in STATE OF U.P. V. VINAY KUMAR JAIN, AIR 1997 SC

342 pertaining to UP Entertainment Tax Act, we see that decision has

no application because compounding for payment of entertainment tax

is based on licence which again is based on seating capacity of the

theatre, whereas in this case all what is required is billing on the MRP

value at 4%.

Review Petition is consequently dismissed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(K. SURENDRA MOHAN)
Judge.

kk

3