Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948

23 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.versusM/S SWADESHI POLYTAX LTD., GHAZIABAD

2005 INSC 45428 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., a dealer of polyester staples fiber, collected sales tax in excess of the prescribed rate and deposited the amount with the Government Treasury. The dealer sought a refund of the excess amount, but the Trade Tax Tribunal ordered a refund contrary to Section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which m

M/S. CO-OPERATIVE COMPANY LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.

2007 INSC 45224 April 2007Case Allowed

The appellant, Mis. Co‑operative Company Ltd., a manufacturer and seller of country liquor and IMFL, was assessed sales tax on amounts it levied as "bottling charges" for glass bottles used to pack country liquor. The Assessing Officer treated these charges as the price of bottles and included them in turnover under s.

M/S. MAHIM PATRAM PRIVATE LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2007 INSC 20523 February 2007Dismissed

Mahim Patram Private Ltd., a contractor printing examination papers for entities outside Uttar Pradesh, was assessed sales tax on its works contracts for AY 2002‑03 and 2003‑04. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 had been amended to bring works contracts within the definition of "sale" but no Central rule prescribed the m

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

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (LEGAL) AND ANR.versusM/S JYOTI TRADERS AND ANR. ETC.

1998 INSC 43820 November 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a sales‑tax assessment for the year 1985‑86, completed before the expiry of the four‑year limitation under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, could be reopened after the legislature enlarged the limitation to eight years by inserting a proviso in the 1991 amendment. The Court he

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusBRIDGE AND ROOF CO. (INDIA) LTD.

1996 INSC 90620 August 1996Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh entered into a works contract with Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., which required the State to deduct 4% tax at source under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, under a composition scheme, directed a reduced deduction of 1% and the State complied, prompting the contra

M/S G.P. CERAMICS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, UP.

2008 INSC 132019 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. set up a new industrial unit on land allotted by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation and began production with its first sale on 24‑Oct‑1992. It applied for trade‑tax exemption under Section 4‑A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act within six months, but the authorities required a co

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

M/S. PONDS INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH H.L. LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW

2008 INSC 71916 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mis. Ponds India Ltd., produced Vaseline white petroleum jelly under a licence granted by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. For assessment years 1981‑1989 the Trade Tax Tribunal classified the product as a pharmaceutical preparation (a "drug") under Entry 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, and

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusDEEPAK FERTILIZERS & PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LTD.

2007 INSC 56914 May 2007Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification on 2 November 1994 exempting the sale of the NPK 23:23:0 fertilizer from trade tax for the period 1 November 1994 to 31 March 1995. Two later notifications dated 10 April 1995 and 15 May 1995 withdrew that exemption retrospectively for NPK 23:23:0 while continuing to

KHATEMA FIBRES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2000 INSC 59312 December 2000Disposed off

Khatema Fibres Ltd., a manufacturer of craft paper, obtained a Recognition Certificate under Section 4‑B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 to claim exemption on the basis that its craft paper was used as packing material. The Allahabad High Court, relying on a Full Bench decision in Mis. Lalji Board Industries v. State o

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. AND ANR.versusM/S. KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD.

2005 INSC 28812 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. appealed against the eligibility certificate granted to Mis. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. for exemption from trade tax under the 1991 Notification. The company had expanded its ceramic tile plant in three stages between 1990 and 1994, increasing capacity from 12,000 TPA to 60,000 TPA, and c

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, TRADE TAX, U.P.versusM/S. D.S.M. GROUP OF INDUSTRIES

2004 INSC 7049 December 2004Disposed off

The appellant, the U.P. Commissioner of Trade Tax, challenged the High Court’s order allowing Mis D.S.M. Group of Industries to claim a trade‑tax exemption under a 1997 Notification. The dispute centered on whether a "unit" for purposes of expansion, modernization or diversification meant each individual plant or the i

20TH CENTURY FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2000 INSC 3049 May 2000

The appellants, leasing companies, entered into master lease agreements for equipment and were taxed by several states on the transfer of the right to use the goods. The states relied on explanations in their sales tax statutes that deemed the taxable event to occur where the goods were used, irrespective of where the

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusM/S. P.N.C. CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.

2007 INSC 8218 August 2007Dismissed

The appellant State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a show‑cause notice that sought to revoke a recognition certificate granted to M/s P.N.C. Construction Ltd. under Section 4‑8 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessee, engaged in a works contract to widen roads for the National Highway Authority, purchased raw materi

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

MORIROKU UT INDIA {P) LTD.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 2823 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic automobile components, received tools, dies and moulds free of cost from its customer Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. to produce components. The Uttar Pradesh Tax Department levied trade tax under Section 3 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the amortisation cost of thes

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