Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S SHANTI FRAGRANCESversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 97121 September 2017Hearing Adjourned

The appeal concerned the taxability of pan masala containing tobacco (gutka) under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The central issue was whether the specific entry introducing "Pan Masala and Gutka" in the rate schedule overrode the general exe

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.versusM/S RADICO KHETAN LTD

2022 INSC 97619 September 2022Dismissed

The original assessee, M/s. Shaw Scott Distillery (P) Ltd., owed trade tax for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. It sold its plant, machinery and goods to M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd. on 12‑12‑1985 and 01‑01‑1986 for Rs.12,12,000, i.e., before any assessment or recovery proceedings were pending. The assessment for 1980‑81 was

COMMERCIAL MOTORS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P., LUCKNOW & OTHERS

2015 INSC 102111 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Commercial Motors Ltd., a dealer of two‑wheelers, was granted a sales‑tax exemption for the assessment year 1990‑91 based on certificates. The revenue later discovered a shortfall of Rs 97,02,050.65 and issued a show‑cause notice on 13 March 2002 under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, seeking reassessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.versusS/S. PARIKH GRAMODYOG SANSTHAN

2010 INSC 50211 August 2010Dismissed

The respondent, S/S Parikh Gramodyog Sansthan, manufactures voltage stabilizers and was assessed sales tax as an 'electrical good' under Entry 16 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessee contended that the stabilizers should be classified as 'electronic goods' under Entry 74(f)/(a)(iii) of Notification No. 1223/34

COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P.versusM/S. A.R. THERMOSETS (PVT.) LTD.

2016 INSC 8546 September 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, challenged the High Court's decision that bitumen emulsion manufactured by the respondent falls under Entry 22 of Schedule II of the VAT Act, which taxes "bitumen" at 4%. The respondent had earlier sought clarification on the tax rate and was taxed at 12.5%

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.

2011 INSC 2715 April 2011Dismissed

Pepsico India Holdings Ltd., a beverage manufacturer in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the trade tax assessed on a turnover of Rs 8.54 crore arising from rentals of glass bottles and crates for the assessment year 1999‑2000, arguing that such rentals were not taxable under s.3‑F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The lower authorit

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXversusM/S. KUMAR PAINTS AND MILL STORES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

2023 INSC 1932 March 2023Dismissed

The Commissioner of Trade Tax appealed against the High Court's decision that mixing base paint with colourants did not create a new product and therefore did not constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(e)(i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessee, M/s. Kumar Paints, argued that the mixing process merely altere

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search