# M/s United Spirits Ltd., Shajahnpur v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1017
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-14
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 619 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-united-spirits-ltd-shajahnpur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51732
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Entry of Goods into Local
Area Act, 2007 - Sections 1(3), 17 & 18 -
U.P. Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax
Act, 2000 - Section 4(A) - U.P. Sales Tax
Rules, 2000 - Rule 41(5) - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition -
Petitioner challenged provisional assessment
order dated April 19, 2006, final assessment
order dated March 30, 2008, and appellate
order dated December 31, 2022, imposing entry
tax of Rs. 2,78,02,393/- on Indian Made Foreign
Liquor (IMFL). Court held: (1) The U.P. Entry of
Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000, was
declared ultra vires by the Allahabad High Court,
and proceedings under the New Act (2007)
apply, but IMFL is not listed in the schedule of
taxable goods under the New Act, rendering the
imposition of entry tax without jurisdiction. (2)
The appellate authority failed to address the
petitioner's argument regarding the absence of
IMFL in the New Act's schedule, making the
order
unreasoned
and
non-speaking.
(3)
Authorities lacked jurisdiction to impose entry
tax on goods not included in the New Act's
schedule, and the issue of non-inclusion goes to
the root of the matter. Impugned appellate
order dated December 31, 2022, quashed;
matter remanded to the authority for a
reasoned order addressing the non-inclusion of
IMFL in the schedule, to be completed within
three months. (Paras 4-9)

Writ Petition Allowed.

## Text

4 All. M/s United Spirits Ltd., Shajahnpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
revisional jurisdiction upon High Courts is
imbued with a profound commitment to the
principles of judicial economy, finality, and
legal certainty. Revisional jurisdiction is
not conceived as a vehicle for the
protracted
re-examination
of
factual
matrices, or the interminable redressal of
grievances
already
exhaustively
adjudicated upon by the lower courts or
tribunals.
Rather,
it
constitutes
an
instrumental mechanism for rectifying
egregious legal errors or jurisdictional
excesses that may have vitiated the
adjudicative process, thereby ensuring the
equitable and efficacious administrative of
justice."

14. In view of the above, I find no
reason to interfere in the order passed by
the Tribunal as the findings of the Tribunal
are based on the materials placed before it
and not a figment of their imagination.
There is no perversity whatsoever in the
order
passed
by
the
Tribunal,
and
accordingly, the same is upheld. The
question of law is answered against the
revisionist
and
in
favour
of
the
dealer/respondent.

15. Ergo, the revision petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1017
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ Tax No. 619 of 2023

M/s United Spirits Ltd., Shajahnpur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Harshul Bhatnagar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Entry of Goods into Local
Area Act, 2007 - Sections 1(3), 17 & 18 -
U.P. Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax
Act, 2000 - Section 4(A) - U.P. Sales Tax
Rules, 2000 - Rule 41(5) - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition -
Petitioner challenged provisional assessment
order dated April 19, 2006, final assessment
order dated March 30, 2008, and appellate
order dated December 31, 2022, imposing entry
tax of Rs. 2,78,02,393/- on Indian Made Foreign
Liquor (IMFL). Court held: (1) The U.P. Entry of
Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000, was
declared ultra vires by the Allahabad High Court,
and proceedings under the New Act (2007)
apply, but IMFL is not listed in the schedule of
taxable goods under the New Act, rendering the
imposition of entry tax without jurisdiction. (2)
The appellate authority failed to address the
petitioner's argument regarding the absence of
IMFL in the New Act's schedule, making the
order
unreasoned
and
non-speaking.
(3)
Authorities lacked jurisdiction to impose entry
tax on goods not included in the New Act's
schedule, and the issue of non-inclusion goes to
the root of the matter. Impugned appellate
order dated December 31, 2022, quashed;
matter remanded to the authority for a
reasoned order addressing the non-inclusion of
IMFL in the schedule, to be completed within
three months. (Paras 4-9)

Writ Petition Allowed.

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

1. Heard Sri Harshul Bhatnagar,
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ
petitioner
is
aggrieved
by
the
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adjudication order dated March 3, 2008 for
recovery of the amount of Rs.2,78,02,393/-
b

3. At the very first instance, counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the provisional assessment
order dated April 19, 2006 was passed as
per Section 4(A) of the Uttar Pradesh Entry
of Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read
with Rule 41(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales
Tax
Rule
2000.
Subsequently,
final
assessment order dated March 30, 2008
was passed. Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the Act was held
to be ultra virus by the High Court,
Allahabad and the matter is pending before
the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the
present Act was brought in by way of an
ordinance and is named as Uttar Pradesh
Entry of goods into Local Area Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the 'New Act').
The Act in Section 1(3) makes it clear that
the Act would be deemed to be in force
from November 1, 1999.

4. The present proceedings have all
taken place under the New Act as earlier
Act has been declared ultra virus by the
High Court. It is to be noted that in the
New Act entry tax is leviable on the goods
that are mentioned in the schedule.
However, the goods in question in the
present case is Indian Made Foreign Liquor
(hereinafter referred to as 'IMFL') which is
not mentioned in the schedule. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
accordingly,
submits
that
the
entire
proceedings that have culminated into the
present liability are non est in law and
without any basis whatsoever.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State has relied on Sections 17 and 18 of
the New Act to indicate that all actions
taken under the earlier Act of 2000 shall be
deemed to have been validly taken.

6. I have heard counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties and perused the
materials on record.

7. The only issue before this Court is
whether the authorities below acted in
accordance with law at the time of passing
the impugned orders. It is clear that the
provisional assessment was done as per the
earlier Act of 2000 while final assessment
has been done under the New Act. The
arguments raised by counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner appears to be a
valid one with regard to the fact that the
New Act does not contain IMFL in the
schedule, and accordingly, under the New
Act, no final assessment could have been
done with regard to the goods which were
not included in the schedule of the New
Act. The Appellate Authority while passing
the order dated December 31, 2022 has not
considered the arguments placed by the
petitioner with regard to the absence of
goods in question in the schedule. It is to be
noted that if the goods in question are not
in the schedule of the New Act, the
authorities had no jurisdiction whatsoever
to impose entry tax on the same. This
question is going to the very root of the
matter and the authority should have
considered and answered the same.

8. In my view, the orders passed are
bereft of any reason with regard to
imposition of entry tax on IMFL that is not
even an item in the schedule to the New
Act.

9. In light of the same, impugned
orders are unreasoned and have been
passed in a non speaking manner.
4 All. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
Accordingly, the impugned order dated
December 31, 2022 is quashed and set
aside with a direction upon the authority
concerned to grant another opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and pass a
reasoned
order
on
the
same
and
specifically giving reasons with regard to
imposition of tax on the particular goods
that are not mentioned in the schedule of
New Act. The parties shall be at liberty to
place
the
relevant
documents
and
judgments
before
the
authority
concerned. The entire exercise should be
completed within a period of three
months from date. Upon passing of the
reasoned order a copy of the same be
handed over to the petitioner within a
week, thereafter.

10. The instant writ petition is
allowed in aforesaid terms. There shall be
no order as to the cost.

----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1019
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ Tax No. 777 of 2022
With
Writ Tax No. 660 of 2023

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Devnath, Sri Nishant Mishra Sri
Abhishek Anand

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Rishi Kumar, Addl. C.S.C.
Civil Law -Integrated Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 - Section 16 - Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 -
Sections 2(19), 2(59) - Constitution of
India,1950
-
Article 226
-
Petitioner
challenged orders dated October 25, 2021, and
February
24,
2023,
rejecting
refund
of
unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) for JulySeptember 2019
(Rs. 7,46,52,231/-) and
October-December 2019 (Rs. 8,20,59,875/-) on
inputs used for export of IT services. Court
held: (1) Department's inconsistent rejection of
refund claims, despite sanctioning similar
claims for prior and subsequent periods under
identical
facts,
violated
the
principle
of
consistency in taxation, undermining fairness
and public trust (Birla Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE, 2005
(186) ELT 266 (SC)). (2) Department travelled
beyond show cause notices by rejecting
refunds on grounds of Accounting Standard 10,
not raised in notices, violating natural justice
(Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. Vs Collector of
Central Excise, (1997) 10 SCC 379). (3)
Specific goods used for R&D and software
development,
not
capitalised
in
books,
qualified as inputs under Section 2(59) of
CGST Act, not capital goods, as they were
essential for IT services (Tata Engineering &
Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs St. of Bihar, 1994
(74) ELT 193 (SC)). (4) GST authorities lacked
jurisdiction
to
question
compliance
with
Accounting Standards, governed by Companies
Act, 2013. Impugned orders dated October 25,
2021, and February 24, 2023, quashed;
consequential reliefs to follow. (Paras 7-22)

Writ Petitions Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Birla Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE, 2005 (186) ELT 266
(SC) (Para 12)

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Collector of C.
Ex., Baroda, 2006 (202) ELT 37 (SC) (Para 13)

3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs U.O.I., (2006)
3 SCC 1 (Para 14)

4. Boving Fouress Ltd. Vs Commissioner of
Central Excise, Chennai, 2006 (202) ELT 389
(SC) (Para 4)