2016 (7) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PELLANT : M/S WADIAGHANDY & CO, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. These Tax Appeals involve common questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. These Tax Appeals under Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 are filed against the judgment of the Gujarat Value ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by holding that once a bulk drug becomes Non-Scheduled drug, provisions of section 4 of the Drug Price Control Order, 1987 which specifically relate to fixation of price of Non-Schedule Drug are to be ignored ?" 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of starch, drugs, medicines....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant filed Rectification Application No.32 of 2006 before the Tribunal. However, the said Application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.04.2007. Hence, these Tax Appeals. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Wadiaghandy & Co. for the appellant submitted that the matter pertains to fixation of price u/s.4 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order as Non-Schedule Drugs. Thou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on record. It transpires from the impugned orders that before the Tribunal the appellant had put into service the submission regarding applicability of the provision of Section 4 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order to its case. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Rectification Application holding that it was an issue of law and that the Tribunal cannot enter into disputed questions of law in such A....