Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the definition of "drug" only if specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Diagnostic Kits were deemed more akin to "devices" than "medicines" and would be considered as "drugs" under sub-section (iv) of Section 3 (b) if notified by the Central Government. The court noted the absence of evidence showing Diagnostic Kits are considered "medicines" or "drugs" by medical practitioners. If the Kits are notified as "drugs," they would be charged at 4% under Entry 48 of Schedule C; otherwise, they would fall under Entry 165 of Schedule D and be taxed at 12.5%. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the definition of "drug" only if specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Diagnostic Kits were deemed more akin to "devices" than "medicines" and would be considered as "drugs" under sub-section (iv) of Section 3 (b) if notified by the Central Government. The court noted the absence of evidence showing Diagnostic Kits are considered "medicines" or "drugs" by medical practitioners. If the Kits are notified as "drugs," they would be charged at 4% under Entry 48 of Schedule C; otherwise, they would fall under Entry 165 of Schedule D and be taxed at 12.5%. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
