Dismissed

All Kerala Chemists and Druggist Association v. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC2 Jun 2015WP(C)/6859/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing Commissioner of Sales Tax to probe alleged unfair trade practices and revenue loss by discount medical shops. Court held issue beyond Sales Tax commissioner's scope as Competition Act provides remedy and disposed of petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Petition disposed of with liberty to avail alternate redressal mechanism under the Competition Act, 2002.

All Kerala Chemists and Druggist Association Vs the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/12TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6859 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ALL KERALA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGIST ASSOCIATION (REGD.), KOLLAM DISTRICT UNIT, CHEMIST BHAVAN, M.C.NO.XXVI/517, CURSON ROAD, KOLLAM -13, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN

¶9

SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR SRI.ASHISH VIDYADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KILLIPALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER OF KERALA, DRUGS CONTROLLER OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 20 KERALA.

¶15

5. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION, BEHIND WMC HOSPITAL, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 064.

¶16

6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶17

7. THE HEALTH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶18

R1-R3,6 & 7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN R4 BY SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC R5 BY SRI.M.AJAY,SC,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 6859 of 2015 (F)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN DESHABBIMANI DATED 23.7.14 AS PER THE INVESTIGATION DONE BY 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT

¶25

P2TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN KAUMUDI DATED 24.8.2014 ON THE BASE OF THE INSPECTION BY THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

¶26

P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.1.2015 BY PETITIONER FORWARDED TO 2ND RESPONDENT

¶27

P4TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE ASWAS COMMMUNITY PHARMACY AND HEALTH CARE CENTRE

¶28

P5TRUE COPY OF THE WHOLE SALE BILL OF THE M/S.VANIYAPURACKAL DISTRIBUTORS DATED 16.1.2015

¶29

P6TRUE COPY OF THE WHOLE SALE BILL OF THE M/S.UNI DRUGS DATED 21.1.2015

¶30

P7TRUE COPY RETAIL BILL DATED 16.1.2015 OF ASWAS COMMUNITY PHARMACY AND HEALTH CARE CENTRE, CHINNAKADA

¶31

P8TRUE COPY OF WHOLE SALE OF BILL OF THE AFORESAID PRODUCTS OF VENAD AGENCIES CHINNAKADA DATED 16.1.2015

¶32

P9TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE DETAILS OF RETURN PERIOD APRIL OF ASWAS COMMUNITY PHARMACY DISTRIBUTORS

¶33

P10TRUE COPY PURCHASE DETAILS OF RETURN PERIOD MAY OF ASWAS COMMUNITY PHARMACY DISTRIBUTORS

¶34

P11TRUE COPY PURCHASE DETAILS OF RETURN PERIOD JULY OF ASWAS COMMUNITY PHARMACY DISTRIBUTORS

¶35

P12TRUE COPY PURCHASE DETAILS OF RETURN PERIOD AUGUST OF ASWAS COMMUNITY PHARMACY DISTRIBUTORS

¶36

P13TRUE OCPY PURCHASE DETAILS OF RETURN PERIOD SEPTEMBER OF ASWAS COMMUNITY PHARMACY DISTRIBUTORS

¶37

P14TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION DATED 18.12.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶44

W.P. (C). No. 6859 of 2015

¶45

------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2015

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

The petitioner is the Secretary of All Kerala Chemists and Druggist Association of Kollam District. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the larger interest alleging unfair trade practice of medical retail outlets in the State who offer high discount to the customers, despite Drugs (price) Control Order 2013. The case of the petitioner is that, high discount on the sale price of the drugs is also causing huge lose to the Exchequer. Such retail outlets are functioning in the name of Aswas, Akshays and Viswas. In that context the petitioner seeks the following reliefs in this writ petition.

¶48

“A. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the functioning of discount retail medical shops in the state and their sources of supply of medicines in bulk that cause big revenue loss to the state exchequer and posing big threat to legally functioning retail medical shops in the state;

¶49

B. Grant such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶50

The 1^st respondent has filed a statement. In the

¶51

statement it is stated that there is actually no revenue loss to the Government Exchequer since the compounded tax at MRP

¶52

W.P. (C). No. 6859 of 2015

¶53

¶54

has been remitted at the first phase of its distribution in the State. It is further stated that Aswas, Viswas, Sevana Medical Shops are functioning under the Societies constituted on the principles of Community Pharmacy. The main aim of the society is to provide relief to the public in a market where the price of medicines are so exorbitant beyond the reach of common man. In fact it appears that the State supports pursuing such activities by the society.

¶55

Essentially the claim of the petitioner appears to be complaining of unfair practices adopted by certain medical retailers. The monopolic tendency of such retailers indulging unfair practices are highlighted.

¶56

I am of the view that it is beyond the scope of Commissioner of Sales Tax, to probe. The Statute like Competition Act, 2002 has made a mechanism to deal with such issues. The petitioner has to work out such remedy either by availing the redressal mechanism of such Act or such other mechanism. No relief can be granted by this Court. This writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail any other alternate redressal mechanism .

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶59

All Kerala Chemists and Druggist Association v. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Kerala Chemists and Druggist Association v. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.R.Mohan Vs Najuma

M.Hidayath Vs the Authorized Officer

Sindhu K.K. Vs Aparna .T

Aparna T Vs State of Kerala

Dr. M.v.Sasidharan Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

Shanil Kumar.R Vs State of Kerala