The Bombay High Court has taken up an important issue concerning the GST classification of vaccines, particularly the wording of the tariff entry referring to “Animal or human Blood Vaccines.”
The bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil has prima facie found substance in the contention that the expression used in the notification may contain an error and has directed the Union Government to examine the issue.
At the heart of the litigation is the wording of the GST entry concerning “Animal or human Blood Vaccines.”
Buy Now: 100+ Judgements On Customs Classification
The petitioner drew the Court’s attention to a communication dated March 5, 2018, issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax to the Fitment Committee concerning GST rates applicable to life-saving drugs and vaccines.
According to the petitioner, the terminology adopted in the relevant GST notification is erroneous because there is, in substance, no product category properly described as “animal or human blood vaccines.”
The petitioner contended that vaccines are properly understood as “Animal or Human Vaccines,” whereas “Human Blood” constitutes a separate commodity. The argument was therefore that the wording appearing in the notification may have resulted from an inadvertent drafting or implementation error.
The Court was referred to the 2018 communication, which itself appears to have recognised difficulties arising from the wording of the entry.
The communication noted that alternative interpretations were possible because of the ambiguity in the entry. It further stated that a suitable clarification explaining the legislative intent and the scope of the entry “Animal or human Blood Vaccines” was warranted.
Importantly, the communication also observed that such clarification would help bring parity in the pricing of vaccines and would assist both the trade as well as the field formations in avoiding divergent interpretations.
This aspect assumes significance because ambiguity in a tax classification entry can potentially result in differing interpretations by taxpayers and tax authorities, particularly where the rate applicable to a product depends upon the precise scope of the tariff description.
After considering the submission advanced on behalf of MSD Pharmaceuticals, the Division Bench recorded a significant prima facie observation.
The Court stated “Prima facie, we find some substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.”
The observation indicates that, at this preliminary stage, the Court found sufficient substance in the petitioner’s argument concerning the apparent error or ambiguity in the notification entry to warrant examination by the respondents.
The Court has not, at this stage, finally determined the correct GST classification or conclusively held that the notification contains a drafting error. Rather, the order records a prima facie view and calls upon the concerned authorities to respond to the issue.
In view of the submissions, the Court issued notice to Respondent Nos. 1 and 4, making the matter returnable on October 22, 2026.
The Court also requested the counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and obtain instructions on the issue.
Significantly, the Bench requested the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue to examine the issue raised in the petition.
The Bombay High Court attached particular significance to the controversy because of the nature of the vaccine involved.
The Court observed that the issue is of “seminal importance”, noting that the vaccine is primarily meant for the girl child.
This observation places the classification dispute in a broader public-interest context. The matter is not merely concerned with technical tariff terminology; the interpretation of the applicable GST entry can have implications for the taxation and pricing of vaccines intended for an important public-health purpose.
The Bench directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to file their affidavit in reply within six weeks from the date of the order.
The petitioner has been given two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder, if required.
The petition has consequently been listed for further hearing on October 22, 2026. The Court has also granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for interim relief in case of difficulty.
The litigation raises an important issue regarding the consequences of ambiguous language in a tax notification.
GST classification determines the rate at which a particular product is taxed. Where the wording of an entry is unclear, taxpayers may face uncertainty regarding the applicable rate, while tax authorities may adopt differing interpretations during assessment, audit or enforcement proceedings.
The present case is particularly noteworthy because the petitioner is not merely disputing the rate applicable to a product; it is challenging the description itself, arguing that the phrase “Animal or human Blood Vaccines” does not accurately describe an identifiable product category.
The Court’s direction to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue to examine the issue may therefore result in a clarification of the scope and intended meaning of the relevant entry.
The Court has not finally ruled upon the applicable GST rate, nor has it conclusively declared the impugned entry invalid. The Bench has only found prima facie substance in the petitioner’s submission and sought a response from the Union Government and the concerned authorities.
The Bombay High Court’s order brings into focus an unusual but significant GST classification dispute arising from the wording of a vaccine-related tax entry. The petitioner’s argument is that the expression “Animal or human Blood Vaccines” is itself erroneous and does not correspond to a proper product description.
With the Court finding prima facie substance in that submission and directing the Department of Revenue to examine the matter, the case could potentially have wider implications for the interpretation and administration of GST entries relating to vaccines.
The Government’s response and the next hearing on October 22, 2026, will be closely watched by pharmaceutical companies, tax professionals and GST authorities, particularly because the dispute concerns the taxation framework applicable to vaccines intended primarily for the girl child.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
