The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S Al- Barkaat Industries
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61721 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 67 of 2025 Revisionist :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S Al- Barkaat Industries Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 68 of 2025 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S Noori Rice Mill Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 69 of 2025 Revisionist :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Up Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S M.M. Rice Industries Jahanabad Richha Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 70 of 2025 Revisionist :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Up Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S Asian Rice Industries Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 72 of 2025 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Up Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S Haidri Rice Mill Bypass Road Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the opposite party.
With the consent of parties, the aforesaid revision petitions are being decided at the admission stage itself.
Since the similar issues are involved in the aforesaid revisions, the same are being decided together by this common order.
For convenience, the facts of the STRE No.67 of 2025 are being delineated here.
By means of instant revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 2017-18 in Second Appeal No.17 of 2024. 6. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 01.07.2017 the UPGST Act was implemented over all the registered dealers, which were erstwhile registered under the U.P. VAT Act as therefore, it discontinued its business from 30 June, 2017. Once the registered dealer, which was erstwhile registered under the U.P. Vat Act, discontinued its business by implication of law, it were required to debit input tax credit in terms of Section 13 (6) of the VAT Act read with Rule 21 (1) (1) of the Rules.
He further submits that the issue in hand is no longer res-integra as the same has already been decided by this Court in batch of petitions; leading of which, STRE No.10 of 2025 (The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow Vs. S/S Janki Industries Nai Basti, Bareilly), decided on 24.03.2025. He prays for allowing the aforesaid revisions in terms of the said judgment.
The said fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the opposite party that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed in S/ S Janki Industries (supra).
In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, all the aforesaid revisions are allowed in terms of the judgment passed in Janki Industries Nai (supra). No order as to costs.
The questions of law framed in all the aforesaid revisions are accordingly answered in favour of the revenue and against the counsel for the opposite party. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.