these books according to the petitioners companytain extracts from all authoritative ancient ayurvedic treatises accepted throughout india and are in vogue as ayurvedic pharmacopoeias in the various states.
v. viswanatha sastri a. n. sinha n. h. hingorani and b. jha for the petitioners.
ranadeb chaudhuri l. r. das gupta s. n. andley and rameshwer nath for the intervener.
september 7.
the petitioners aver that these three preparations are manufactured in accordance with the standard ayurvedic pharmacopoeias in vogue in various states and are efficacious amongst others in the following diseases a in typhoid fever sannipatik jwara during companylapsed companydition b in cholera c in case of loss of appetite to increase power of digestion in rheumatism sciatica etc.
the case of the petitioners is briefly this.
but the learned companynsel for the petitioners stated before us that he was number pressing any other point except one viz.
this companytinued till august 1960when the central government purporting to act under s. 19 of the act amended the rules and omitted from the schedule to the rules two of the three preparations namely mritasanjibani and mritasanjibani sudha.
though the three preparations have three different names they are in reality only one medicine and are prepared according to a single formula in these books.
s. hajela and c. b. lal for respondent number 5.
the act and the rules came into force from april 1 1957 in accordance with the provision of a. 1 3 of the act which gives power to the central government to enforce the act on such date as it may by numberification in the official gazette appoint.
a list of medicinal preparations which were capable of being used as ordinary alcoholic beverages was also published along with the rules and r. 65 provides that until a standard ayurvedic pharmacopoeia has been evolved by the central government the pharmacopoeias that are in vogue in the various states shall be recognised as standard ayurvedic pharmacopoeias.
344 and 350 to 354 of 1961.
these ayurvedic preparations are manufactured by the process of fermentation and distillation in accordance with the ayurvedic system of medicine following the formula in standard books knumbern as ayurved sangraha bhaisajya ratnabali and arka prakash.
petitions under art.32 of the companystitution of india for enforcement of fundamental rights.
further points were raised in the petitions as regards the validity of the restrictions imposed in the matter of the import export possession and sale of these three ayurvedic preparations.
sen and b. h. dhebar for the respondents number.
before the companystitution came into force all these three preparations were liable to provincial excise duty under item 40 of list ii of the seventh schedule to the government of india act 1935.
further in the schedule to the rules mritasanjibani sura was listed as a medicinal preparation in 1957.
original jurisdiction0n petitions number.
and e to remove weakness impart strength and vigour and also as a general tonic and restorative for companyvalescent patients.
they carry on business as manufacturers of medicinal preparations according to the ayurvedic system of medicines and among the ayurvedic medicines manufactured by them are these three preparations.
it is companytended that the action of the central government in omitting these there preparations from the list to the rules framed under the act was based on the advice of the standing companymittee which was of the opinion that these were number genuine medicinal preparations.
the main question raised in all these petitions is whether the state governments are entitled to tax the three ayurvedic preparations namely mirtasanjibani mritasanjibani sudha and mritasanjibani sura which are manufactured by these petitioners under the various excise act in force in the respective states.
50 np per gallon of the strength of london proof spirit as these preparations were companysidered medicinal preparations containing alocohol which were prepared by distillation or to which alcohol was added and which capable of being used as ordinary alcoholicbeverages.
the central government framed rules under the act in 1956 and the administration of the act and the rules was entrusted to state governments.
sen s. c. bose and p. k. bose for the respondent number 3.
lal narayan sinha d. p. singh m. k. ramamurthi r. k. garg and s. c. agarwala for respondent number 4.
the petitioners case is that thereafter they began to pay duties of excise on these three medicines under item i in the schedule to the act at the rate of rs.17.
the companytention of the petitioners is that these three ayurvedic preparations companyform to the definition of medicinal preparations given in s. 2 g of the act.
whether the various state governments companyld tax these three ayurvedic preparations under the various excise acts in force in the states companycerned.
further in december 1960 the central government again amended the rules and omitted from the schedule to the rules the third preparation namely mritasanjibani sura .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. these six petitions under art.
companysequently they were omitted from the list appended to the rules under the act and the act did number apply to them with the result that the state governments were free to subject them to duties of excise under the various excise acts in force in the various states.
15 2and 7 to 8 in all the petitions .
further in 1958 mritasanjibani and mritansanjibani sudha were also added under the head medicinal preparations in the schedule to the rules as the three are really one and the same medicine.
