STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. M/S. ARYAVERTH CHAWL UDYOUG
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 27,2014
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
S. NARAYANAPPA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. S.P. CHALIHA [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANIES DISTRICT I CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
S C PRASHAR HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION VS. VASANTSEN DWARKADAS:VASANTSEN DWARKADAS [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT VS. BHANJI LAVJI PORBANDAR [REFERRED TO]
SHEONATHSINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL VS. DINESH CHANDRA H SHAH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT II AHMEDABAD VS. KURBAN HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P VS. BHAGWAN INDUSTRIES P LTD [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYDERABAD VS. NAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADUR [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
A L A FIRM VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
BINANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
ASLAM MOHD MERCHANT VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AWLESH KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-205] [REFERRED TO]SANTIAGO MARTIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2023-9-213] [REFERRED TO]
UPHILL FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
SHEETAL BAMALWA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2023-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
NILMANI SINGH CONTRACTOR THROUGH ITS PROP VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
SARVSHREE S K ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROP VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
MOLSON COORS COBRA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2019-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOTECH REALTY PVT. LTD VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GRADE-1 COMMERCIAL TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-355] [REFERRED TO]
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2019-3-169] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN SOOD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2344 (MB) of 2008, dated 22.05.2008, whereby and where under, the High Court, while upholding the legality of the Circular No.137, dated 29-30.03.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, has quashed the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act").
(2.)Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of the High Court and factual matrix in all the appeals is also identical, while disposing of these appeals by this common judgment and order, we would only notice facts in the lead matter, Civil Appeal No.6714 Of 2009, in respect to respondent-assessee, M/s. Aryaverth Udyog, Gauhanna, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
(3.)Briefly stated, the facts in the lead case are: the relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 2001-02. The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956"). It is engaged in the business of manufacture of rice from paddy in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The assessee consumes paddy purchased within the State of Uttar Pradesh to manufacture rice at their rice mills and sells the rice so manufactured within the State and outside in course of inter-State trade under the Act, 1956.
(2.)Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of the High Court and factual matrix in all the appeals is also identical, while disposing of these appeals by this common judgment and order, we would only notice facts in the lead matter, Civil Appeal No.6714 Of 2009, in respect to respondent-assessee, M/s. Aryaverth Udyog, Gauhanna, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
(3.)Briefly stated, the facts in the lead case are: the relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 2001-02. The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956"). It is engaged in the business of manufacture of rice from paddy in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The assessee consumes paddy purchased within the State of Uttar Pradesh to manufacture rice at their rice mills and sells the rice so manufactured within the State and outside in course of inter-State trade under the Act, 1956.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.