Sales tax classification of Boroplus upheld as a cosmetic; reassessment could not extend beyond the disputed product.

Sales tax classification turned on the product's true commercial and technical identity under the relevant statutory definitions. Boroplus did not satisfy the requirements for a homeopathic medicine, Ayurvedic drug, drug, or patent or proprietary medicine because the evidence did not establish homeopathic provings, clinical efficacy, or manufacture in accordance with the prescribed Ayurvedic formulae; it was therefore correctly treated as a cosmetic. Fresh assessments could not be extended to products other than Boroplus, because the earlier direction to reassess was confined to that product alone, and reassessment beyond that scope was unauthorised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Boroplus was classifiable as a Homeopathic medicine, an Ayurvedic drug, a drug, or a patent or proprietary medicine, and therefore exempt from treatment as a cosmetic for sales tax purposes; (ii) whether fresh assessments could be made only in respect of Boroplus or also in respect of the company's other products.

Issue (i): Whether Boroplus was classifiable as a Homeopathic medicine, an Ayurvedic drug, a drug, or a patent or proprietary medicine, and therefore exempt from treatment as a cosmetic for sales tax purposes.

Analysis: Classification under the sales tax notifications had to be determined by the relevant statutory definitions and by the true character of the product in common parlance and technical sense. A Homeopathic medicine had to satisfy the requirements of the Homeopathic rules, including provings or established therapeutic efficacy and preparation by Homeopathic pharmacy techniques. An Ayurvedic drug had to be manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in authoritative Ayurvedic books specified in the First Schedule. A patent or proprietary medicine likewise had to fit the statutory definition by reference to the notified formulation. Boroplus did not satisfy these standards on the evidence. The materials relied on by the company did not establish Homeopathic provings, scientific clinical trials, or manufacture strictly according to the authoritative Ayurvedic formulae. The product was a cream, fell within the notified class of cosmetics, and the Revenue discharged the burden of showing that it was commercially and legally a cosmetic rather than a drug.

Conclusion: Boroplus was not a Homeopathic medicine, Ayurvedic drug, drug, or patent or proprietary medicine for the purposes of the sales tax notifications, and it was correctly treated as a cosmetic.

Issue (ii): Whether fresh assessments could be made only in respect of Boroplus or also in respect of the company's other products.

Analysis: The earlier order quashing the assessments and directing fresh assessment was confined to the dispute concerning Boroplus. There was no mandate to reopen assessments for products other than Boroplus, which were never the subject matter of the earlier controversy. The fresh assessments, so far as they covered other products, exceeded the scope of the earlier direction.

Conclusion: Fresh assessments could not be sustained for products other than Boroplus, and reassessment was required only for those other products.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded only to the limited extent of excluding products other than Boroplus from the impugned reassessments, while the classification of Boroplus as a cosmetic was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax classification, a product's character must be determined by the statutory definition applied to its true commercial and technical identity, and a claimed medicinal product cannot be treated as a drug or medicine unless the evidence satisfies the specific statutory requirements governing the relevant medical system and the product's notified classification.

---