<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (8) TMI 169 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148467</link>
    <description>A medical practitioner who dispenses medicines prepared on his own prescriptions was treated as a dealer manufacturing or producing goods for sale under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Court reasoned that the professional service of diagnosis ends with the prescription, and the subsequent preparation and supply of medicine amounts to sale of a finished commercial article. Medicines brought into existence for patients were treated as commercial commodities capable of sale, bringing the practitioner within the statutory definition of dealer. The objection based on alternative remedy was also rejected because the writ petition was entertained and decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:27:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 169 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148467</link>
      <description>A medical practitioner who dispenses medicines prepared on his own prescriptions was treated as a dealer manufacturing or producing goods for sale under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Court reasoned that the professional service of diagnosis ends with the prescription, and the subsequent preparation and supply of medicine amounts to sale of a finished commercial article. Medicines brought into existence for patients were treated as commercial commodities capable of sale, bringing the practitioner within the statutory definition of dealer. The objection based on alternative remedy was also rejected because the writ petition was entertained and decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>