The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Adani Wilmar Ltd. Ghaziabad

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:34992

Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 552 of 2013

Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Opposite Party :- S/S Adani Wilmar Ltd. Ghaziabad

Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C.

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanyukta Singh

Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/revisionist and Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated January 24, 2013.

3. In the present revision petition, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revisionist has framed the following question of law :

"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in affirming the order passed by the first appellate authority holding that the bakery shortening and vanaspati ghee are same commodity hence liability to tax @ same rate and not as an unclassified item?"

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the aforesaid issue is covered by a judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in The Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/s Adani Wilmar Limited (Writ Tax No.100 of 2023 decided on October 4, 2023).

5. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that coordinate Bench of this Court after referring to two Supreme Court judgements in Mauri Yeast India Private Limited v. State

1

of U.P, and others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 680 and Union of India and others Vs. Garware Nylons Limited and others and others reported in (1996) 10 SCC 413 held in favour of the assessee and against the department.

6. In light of the above, it is clear that the issue involved in the present revision is covered by the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Adani Wilmar Limited's case (supra). I see no reason to defer with the view taken in M/s Adani Wilmar Limited's case (supra), and accordingly, hold in favour of the assessee and against the department. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.

7. The revision petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Kuldeep

(Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

2