Arishtams and asavas classified as ayurvedic medicines; higher 30% tax under item 135 struck down as discriminatory

SC held that arishtams and asavas are ayurvedic medicinal preparations and cannot be subjected to a higher sales tax rate of 30% under item 135 when other ayurvedic medicines are taxed at a lower rate under item 95, absent a rational basis for such fiscal discrimination. Finding no valid justification for differential treatment within the same class of medicinal commodities, SC allowed the appeals, set aside the HC judgment, and directed reassessment of turnover at the concessional rate under item 95. The tax authorities were ordered to refund excess tax, with corresponding obligations on the assessees to refund recovered excess to customers and to remit any unclaimed balance to a named educational foundation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge of levy at 30% on arishtams and asavas.
2. Constitutionality of the higher levy of sales tax on arishtams and asavas.
3. Discrimination against manufacturers of ayurvedic preparations.
4. Justification for the higher rate of tax on arishtams and asavas.
5. Comparison of arishtams and asavas with other medicinal preparations.
6. Application of tax rates to different categories of medicinal preparations.
7. Interpretation of medicinal preparations containing alcohol.
8. Entitlement to refund of excess sales tax paid.
9. Directions for refund process and handling of unrefunded amounts.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the levy at 30% on arishtams and asavas, emphasizing the essentiality of alcohol in these ayurvedic medicines for absorption and preservation. The State of Tamil Nadu had imposed a higher tax rate on arishtams and asavas to curb abuse and substandard production. The appellants contended that this levy discriminated against them and violated constitutional provisions. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions, viewing the tax imposition as primarily revenue-focused and rejecting claims of discrimination or ulterior motives.

The Court examined whether arishtams and asavas warranted differential treatment from other medicinal preparations due to their alcohol content. It was established that both categories fell under medicinal preparations, and thus, should be treated similarly for tax purposes. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that the mere presence of alcohol did not justify differential treatment. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants, entitling them to a refund of excess sales tax paid due to the incorrect categorization under a higher tax rate.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the reassessment of tax at the lower rate for arishtams and asavas. The appellants were instructed to inform customers of the refund entitlement and handle any unrefunded amounts appropriately. The decision highlighted the need for consistent treatment of medicinal preparations and upheld the appellants' right to a refund based on the incorrect tax categorization.

---