Allahabad High Court
THE C.C.T. U.P. LUCKNOWversusM/S HEMRAJ FOODS PVT. LTD.
- Decided
- Bench
- PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Holding
The revisions are dismissed because the toffee cannot be classified as a sugar product under the applicable schedule, following the precedent set in Commissioner Commercial Tax v. Bhawati Trading Co.
Summary
The Commercial Tax Department (CCTUP) filed multiple sales/trade tax revisions against M/s Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the toffee sold by the company, having a sugar content of less than 95%, should be classified as a sugar product and taxed at 4% under Schedule‑II Part A, Serial No. 137. The revisions were consolidated and heard together, with the central question being whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in treating the toffee as a sugar product for tax purposes. The respondent relied on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Commissioner Commercial Tax v. Bhawati Trading Co., dated 26 July 2022, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16829/2023 on 4 August 2023. The Court found that the facts of the present case were identical to those in Bhawati Trading Co., and therefore the Tribunal’s classification was erroneous. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the revisions, holding that the toffee could not be taxed as a sugar product under the cited schedule. The judgment affirmed the respondent’s position and dismissed the revisionist’s claims.
Issues considered
- Whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in classifying toffee with less than 95% sugar content as a sugar product liable to tax at 4% under Schedule‑II Part A, Serial No. 137.
Subjects
- sales tax
- commercial tax
- tax classification
- sugar content
- toffee
- Schedule‑II Part A
- revision
- tribunal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 532 of 2017
The C.C.T.U.P. Lucknow
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
M/s Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Along with :
1. Sales/trade Tax Revision No. 538 of 2017:
The C.C.T.U.P. Lucknow
Versus
M/s Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd.
2. Sales/trade Tax Revision No. 536 of 2017:
The Commissioner Commercial Tax
Versus
M/s. Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd.
3. Sales/trade Tax Revision No. 535 of 2017:
The C.C.T.U.P. Lucknow
Versus
M/s Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd.
4. Sales/trade Tax Revision No. 534 of 2017:
The C.C.T.U.P. Lucknow
Versus
M/s Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd.
5. Sales/trade Tax Revision No. 533 of 2017:
The C.C.T.U.P. Lucknow
Versus
M/s Hemraj Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bipin Kumar Pandey, S.C.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Nishant Mishra
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Shri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the State- revisionist and Ms. Ojaswi
Gupta holding brief of Mr. Nishant Mishra for the respondents.
2. The controversy involved in all the aforesaid revisions are similar, therefore, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid revisions are decided at
the admission stage, by common order, treating S.T.R.E. No. 532 of 2017 as leading
case.
3. The instant revisions have been filed against the impugned order dated 22.5.2017
passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal Nos. 458/2014 (2008-09) ,
457/2014 (2008-09), 460/2014(2009-10) and 459/2014 (2009-10).
STRE No. 532 of 2017
2
4. The above-noted revision has been filed on the following question of law:-
"(i) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commercial Tax
Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the toffee sold by the opposite party
dealer having sugar contents less than 95% holding it as a sugar product liable to be
taxed @ 4 % under schedule -II Part A at Serial No. 137? "
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the issue in
hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Vs. Bhawati Trading Co. (Sales / Trade Tax Revision Defective
No. 39 of 2019) decided on 26.7.2022. He submits that the said judgement has been
challenged by the Revenue before the Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) no.
16829/2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.8.2023 and the order dated
26.7.2022 passed by this Court has been affirmed.
6. The said fact could not be disputed by the learned ACSC for the revisionist.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, all the aforesaid
revisions are dismissed in terms of the judgement passed in Bhawati Trading Co.
(supra).
8. The question of law is answered in favour of the opposite party and against the
revisionist.
September 17, 2026
Rahul Dwivedi/-
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…