# M/s John Oakey And Mohan Limited, Mohannagar, Ghaziabad v. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-08
- **Case number:** Commercial Tax Revision No. 206 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-john-oakey-and-mohan-limited-mohannagar-ghaziabad-v-the-commissioner-51310
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2 All. M/s John Oakey And Mohan Limited, Mohannagar, Ghaziabad Vs. The
 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow
171

17. In light of the aforesaid
discussion, it is evident that the impugned
order dated January 25, 2023, does not
warrant any intervention. Accordingly, the
instant revision is dismissed. Consequential
relief to follow.

18. Urgent photostat-certified copies
of this order, if applied for, should be
readily made available to the parties upon
compliance with requisite formalities.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 171
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Commercial Tax Revision No. 206 of 2022

M/s John Oakey And Mohan Limited,
Mohannagar, Ghaziabad ...Applicant
Versus
The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,
U.P. Lucknow ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shubham Agrawal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
C.S.C.

Taxation Law- Entry Tax - U.P. Tax on
Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007
- Notification No. 104 dated 15.01.2009 -
Revisionist challenged levy of entry tax on craft
paper imported from outside local area for
manufacturing
coated
abrasive
sheets
-
Tribunal upheld levy for assessment year 201112 - Held, craft paper not used for writing,
printing, or packing, hence not liable for entry
tax as per notification - Prior High Court
decision for 2010-11 in Sales/Trade Tax
Revision No. 728 of 2014 in favour of assessee,
not challenged by department, binding under
doctrine of finality - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. followed, affirming consistency in tax
matters absent new facts or law - Tribunal's
order set aside, revision allowed, refund of
deposited amount ordered within six weeks.
(Para 3-6)

Revision petition allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs U.O.I.; [2006]
3 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal,
counsel appearing on behalf of the
revisionist and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. The following questions of law
have been admitted in this revision petition
:-

"(1). Whether the Tribunal was
justified in affirming levy of entry tax on
craft paper purchased by the applicant
from outside the local area, though the
craft paper purchased by the applicant has
been used in manufacturing of coated
abrasive sheet (Regmar paper), and is not
meant for writing, printing and packing as
provided by notification no.104 dated
15.1.09, upon which only the entry tax is
leviable?

(2). Whether the Tribunal was
justified in affirming levy of entry tax on
craft paper and not considering that
identical issue been decided in favour of
the applicant by this Hon'ble Court for the
assessment year 2010-11, and the assessing
authority for the subsequent years 2012-13
to 2017-18 has already accepted that entry
tax would not be leviable on the craft paper
purchased by the applicant from outside the
local area, since it is not used for writing,
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
printing and packing within the local area,
by the applicant?"

3. It is to be noted that for the same
assessee on the same issue the Tribunal had
held in favour of the assessee for the
assessment year 2010-11. The matter was
carried to this High Court by way of
Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.728 of 2014
and by an order dated December 21, 2015
the issue was decided in favour of the
assessee and against the department.

4. This decision of the High Court
was accepted by the department and has not
been challenged by way of any appeal.
Hence, applying the doctrine of finality this
issue is no longer res-integra.

5. One may ofcourse keep in mind
that in taxation matters, the principles of
res-judicata do not apply squarely for one
assessment year to the other. However,
keeping in mind the doctrine of finality,
unless there is a marked change from one
assessment
year
to
the
other,
the
department cannot be allowed to take a
different stand. The above principle has
been upheld by the Supreme Court in a
catena of judgments including Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India
reported in [2006] 3 SCC 1, wherein the
Supreme Court has held as follows :-

"The courts will generally adopt
an earlier pronouncement of the law or a
conclusion of fact unless there is a new
ground urged or a material change in the
factual position. The reason why court have
held parties to the opinion expressed in a
decision in one assessment year to the same
opinion in a subsequent year is not because
of any principle of res judicata but because
of the theory of precedent or the
precedential
value
of
the
earlier
pronouncement. Where facts and law in a
subsequent assessment year are the same,
no authority whether qushi-judicial or
judicial can generally be permitted to take
a different view. This mandate is subject
only to the usual gateways of distinguishing
the earlier decision or where the earlier
decision in per-incuriam. However, these
are fetters only on a co-ordinate bench
which, failing the possibility of availing of
either of these gateways, may yet differ
with the view expressed and refer the
matter a Bench of superior strength or in
some cases to a Bench of superior
jurisdiction."

6. In the light of the above, it is clear
that as no new facts have emerged in the
present case, the questions of law have to
be decided in favour of the assessee.
Accordingly,
the
revision
petition
is
allowed. Consequential reliefs to follow.

7. Any amount that has been
deposited by the assessee in relation to the
above demand shall be returned to the
assessee within a period of six weeks from
date.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 172
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ Tax No. 228 of 2020

M/s Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Rahul
Agarwal