Would it matter if you called your light refreshment a syrup, a fruit juice, or a non-fruit syrup? Or would it soothe your nerves if it were spelt correctly as “sharbat” or “sherbat” as you please?

As it turns out, a fresh sip or a cold drink may not always be aspirational enough to have even if it slipped in some nutrition. For a difference in perception can cost as much as ₹2.6 crore.

Hamdard Wakf’s humble Rooh Afza found itself in such a jam when the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Government of Haryana insisted that the drink was a syrup that ought be taxed at 12.5 per cent. Managers, however, insisted that the refreshment their company has served since 1907 was in fact a fruit juice to be taxed at 4 per cent.

So the company paid the government tax under protest, which totalled ₹2.65 crore. And took the matter to the Supreme Court.

Hamdard’s drink Rooh Afza is locally made, and known to be rose coloured and flavoured as such. Its name is made up of two words in Urdu paired together that loosely translates to ‘soul refresher’.

Sugar, however, forms a bulk of the drink’s composition, as a sweetner for the tongue and as a preservative for the fruit content.

But while the amount of sugar involved is similar to that of a lot of other fruit drinks, the ingredient that imparts to such products their identity and character is perhaps not sugar.

The ingredients for Rooh Afza range from pineapple and orange juice, to a blended mixture of fruit extracts and herbs including and as varied as watermelon, lemon, keora, carrots, munaqqa, dhania, khurfa, palak, pudina, hara ghia, kasni, sandal sufed, khas hindi, chharila, gul nilofar, berg gaozaban, and rose too. The final product contains not less than 10 per cent fruit juice.

The Court has held that differences in branding strategies cannot alter the commercial understanding of the product in the mind of an average consumer. A ‘soft-serve’ sold at McDonalds outlets would be classified as ‘ice-cream’ if the commercial understanding is such. Similarly, ‘clinical syringes’ could not be considered as ‘glassware’ merely because they are made of glass, as commercial understanding prevails over technical or dictionary meaning.

Also, the tax department had not shown any proof — like market research, customer surveys, trade reports, or documents — to show that others do not see this product as a fruit-based drink.

The flavour, aroma and beverage character are derived from the fruit juice component, which together impart to the product its character as a flavoured sherbat intended for dilution and consumption as a refreshing drink.

And thus was recognised the fruity portion of the humble soul refresher. The verdict was in favour of the company, with relief including refund or adjustment of excess tax paid in accordance with law.