KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER,J. - (1.) In both these writ petitions, same petitioner-M/s G.D. Goenka (P) Ltd. has challenged notices issued by Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax Circle-II, Agra.
(2.) In Writ Petition No. 146 of 2013, it has challenged notices dated 21.12.2012 and 15.01.2013 issued under Section 28(3) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the " VAT Act , 2008") in respect of Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2009-10 respectively. In Writ Petition No. 636 of 2015 it has challenged assessment order dated 26.06.2015 for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2008-09 and consequential demand of tax of Rs. 14,17,575/- and Rs. 8,35,993/- respectively.
(3.) The common questions raised in both these writ petitions are as under: a)Whether grant of Non-Exclusive License to Franchise for use of brand name of petitioner under Franchisee Agreement amounts to transaction for transfer of rights to use goods for the purpose of levying VAT in terms of settled law laid down by Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1383 and State of A.P. Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., 126 STC 114 SC. b)Whether grant of non-exclusive licence to Franchise for use of brand name of petitioner under Franchisee Agreement comes under the provisions of Service Tax or is amenable to VAT/sales tax, and if both than which part is under Service Tax Act and which part is under VAT Act , 2008. c)Whether respondent no. 2 is justified in assessing VAT on such use of trade mark of petitioner without adjudicating legal issues raised by petitioner vide its various reply filed with respondent no. 2 alongwith judgment as the exercise of process of levying VAT on petitioner will be futile if this Court decided this question of law in favour of petitioner. ;