Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Rules Nycil Talcum Powder with Medicinal Ingredients to be Classified as "Cosmetics" for Taxation Purposes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the classification of talcum powder (Nycil) containing medicinal ingredients for taxation purposes. A bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta pronounced the judgment, affirming that such products should be treated as "cosmetics" rather than "medicaments" under the applicable tax laws.

The court examined two separate cases from Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where the classification of talcum powder came under scrutiny. The central issue revolved around whether talcum powder with medicinal ingredients should be considered a cosmetic or a medicament for the purpose of taxation. The judgment provided crucial clarity on the matter, outlining the legislative intent behind the relevant entries and interpreting the provisions of the law.

Referring to the first case from Kerala, the court emphasized the importance of giving words used in statutes their plain meaning. It pointed out that the entry in question clearly indicated that talcum powders containing medications, irrespective of the proportion, should be treated as cosmetics falling under a specific category. The court cited the principle of strict interpretation in construing taxing statutes and concluded that the legislative intent ruled out any scope for classifying such talcum powders as medicinal preparations or drugs.

Moving on to the second case from Tamil Nadu, the court highlighted the legislative history of the entry and an amendment made in 1994. It noted that the explanation added to the entry explicitly included medicated talcum powder, regardless of whether it was manufactured under a license issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court referred to previous judgments to support its interpretation of explanations as tools to widen the meaning of terms and clear up any ambiguity in the main provision. In this case, the court concluded that the plain meaning of the taxation head or entry had to be given, as there was no ambiguity, justifying the findings recorded by the High Courts.

Date: May 4, 2023

HEINZ INDIA LIMITED VS THE STATE OF KERELA

Latest Legal News