HEMANT GUPTA, INDIRA BANERJEE, SURYA KANT, M. M. SUNDRESH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Government Of N. C. T. Of Delhi Through Its Principal Secretary (Finance) – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhruv Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Prabha Swami, AOR Mr. Nikhil Swami, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nischit Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Nischit Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shreshth Arya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pandey, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. S. Sabarish, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Shivani Jena, Adv. Mr. S. Shankar, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Dr. V. Dappen Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. K.N.S. Pandian, Adv. Ms. Kavita Muthusamy, Adv. Ms. Kiren K. Pandi Selvy, Adv. Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR Mr. N. Venkatraman, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
JUDGMENT :
INDIRA BANERJEE J.
1. The main question raised in this batch of appeals is, whether, ‘Pan Masala’, which contains tobacco and gutka, covered by an Entry in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957, hereinafter referred to as the ‘ADE Act’, are taxable by the State under the Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 and/or the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 1948 and/or the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. In Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India and others, (2018) 11 SCC 305, a Division Bench of this Court observed:
12. It does appear that there is a direct conflict between Kothari Products [Kothari Products Ltd. v. State of A.P., (2000) 9 SCC 263], Radheshyam Gudakhu Factory [State of Orissa v. Radheshyam Gudakhu Factory, (2018) 11 SCC 505 : (1988) 68 STC 92 (SC)] and Reliance Trading Co. [Reliance Trading Co. v. State of Kerala, (2011) 15 SCC 762] judgments on the one hand, and Agra Belting Works [CST v. Agra Belting Works, (1987) 3 SCC 140 : 1987 SCC (Tax) 233], which was also followed by two other judgments, on the other. We may hasten to add that there are three-Judge Bench decisions on both sides....”
3. The Bench further observed
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
