The court established that 'Bakery Shortening' should be classified as 'Vanaspati' under the UP VAT Act, justifying the lower tax rate of 4% instead of 12.5% due to shared chemical properties and definitions.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - revisionist and Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The present revisions have been filed against the judgement & order dated 17.09.2022 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 588/2018 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 under the VAT Act, in which following question of law has been framed:-

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in treating the 'Bakery Shortening' and Vanaspati (Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil) as one and the same commodity and is taxable @ 4% under the Entry No. 130 of Schedule II, Part - A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008?

3. The learned ACSC for the revisionist submits that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. He further submits that the opposite party is a registered dealer and is engaged in the business of manufacture of edible oil, vanaspati ghee, including bakery shortening, coconut oil, refined oil, mustered oil, etc. and the manufacturing unit of the opposite party is at Mundra (Gujarat), Haldia (West Bengal), Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jaipur and have its branches in the State of Uttar Pradesh at various places. The main place of business in the State of U.P. is at Ghaziabad. The opposite party receives goods by way of stock transfer in the State of U.P. and made sales thereafter. He further submits that the opposite party has admitted its tax liability @ 8% on the sale of bakery shortening treating the same as covered under Entry 130 of Part - A of Schedule - II, which specifies "Vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil)". He further submits that the Assessing Authority, while framing the assessment order, rejected the said claim and levied higher rate of tax @ 12.5% treating the bakery shortening as unclassified item. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the opposite party - dealer, which was allowed and confirmed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. He has relied upon the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Parisons Food Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Others [2018 Supreme (Keral) 16] and submitted that identical issue has been dealt with in favour of the Revenue.

4. Learned ACSC further submits that the two authorities below have wrongly accepted the claim of the opposite party as the item is not covered under hydrogenated vegetable oil, but is unclassified item and attracts higher rate of tax. He prays for allowing the revision.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party - dealer supports the order and submits that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the authorities below, which cannot be interfered with in the present revision. She further submits that the opposite party has brought on record various certificates of the competent authorities literature, user certificate, detail of its manufacturing product, etc., which are not in dispute at any stage and not even before this Court in the present revision. She further submits that under section 35 of the VAT Act, a decision has been given by the Commissioner in the case of Jain Suddh and Krishna, where bakery shortening has been treated as vanaspati ghee and duly covered under Entry 130 of Part - A of Schedule - II. The said judgement has not been challenged or reversed by the competent authority to the best of the knowledge of the opposite party. She further submits that the raw material used in the m