TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an ayurvedic practitioner who prepares medicines from different drugs and supplies them to patients is a manufacturer of medicines and pharmaceutical preparations; (ii) Whether such practitioner is a dealer and whether the supply of medicines to his patients amounts to sale within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Issue (i): Whether an ayurvedic practitioner who prepares medicines from different drugs and supplies them to patients is a manufacturer of medicines and pharmaceutical preparations.
Analysis: The applicable test was whether the medicines prepared in the dispensary were turned into a commercial commodity by the process adopted, so as to amount to manufacture. Applying the principle stated by the Supreme Court, a medical practitioner who prepares a mixture of drugs for a particular patient for treatment of an ailment diagnosed by professional skill, and whose preparation is not normally capable of being passed from hand to hand as a commercial commodity, does not become a manufacturer merely because he mixes or compounds the medicines himself.
Conclusion: The practitioner was not a manufacturer of the medicines prepared by him.
Issue (ii): Whether such practitioner is a dealer and whether the supply of medicines to his patients amounts to sale within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: A dealer under section 2(d) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 is a person who, in the normal course of trade, sells or purchases goods delivered for consumption in the State. On the facts found, the practitioner was only a vaid carrying on professional consultation and dispensing medicines to patients after examination or correspondence, and not carrying on trade or business in the normal commercial sense. Since the earnings were not from sale of goods manufactured by him and the activity was not a trading operation, the statutory definition of dealer was not attracted.
Conclusion: The practitioner was not a dealer and the supply of medicines to his patients did not amount to sale within the Act.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, with both questions decided in the negative.
Ratio Decidendi: Preparation and supply of patient-specific medicinal mixtures by a medical practitioner for treatment, without the element of commercial turnover in goods, does not amount to manufacture or trading sale under sales tax law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
