Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition stands dismissed. This decision is based on the judgment dated September 23, 2015, rendered by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in connected Special Appeals, which had already resolved the issues raised by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Apex Court had also dismissed the petitioner's Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) against the Division Bench's judgment on December 7, 2015. Therefore, the matter was considered laid to rest. The Court did not independently analyze the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the circulars or Section 6(3) but relied on the prior pronouncements of the Division Bench and the Apex Court. No specific findings were made on each individual issue presented by the petitioner, as the entire petition was dismissed based on the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 12, 2015, passed by the third respondent, and the demand pursuant thereto. The petitioner sought to quash Circular No. 4411 dated January 23, 2013, issued by the second respondent, and to declare Section 6(3) of an unspecified Act unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought a declaration that Circular No. 46 dated June 28, 2008, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, was binding. The High Court noted that an identical issue was pending before a Division Bench. Subsequently, the petitioner's counsel presented a judgment of the Division Bench dated September 23, 2015, in connected Special Appeals, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition on this aspect. The petitioner had further appealed to the Apex Court via S.L.P. No. 33308-33310/2015, which was also dismissed on December 7, 2015.

Key Issues

1. Whether Circular No. 4411 dated January 23, 2013, issued by the second respondent, is impermissible and unconstitutional in so far as it authorizes discrimination between dealers of packing materials situated in Uttarakhand and those situated outside Uttarakhand. (Question of law) 2. Whether Section 6(3) of the relevant Act, which denies input tax credit in respect of packing material beyond the CST rate when finished goods are removed by way of depot transfer, is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution. (Question of law) 3. Whether the expression ‘raw materials’ encompasses packing materials, for which goods cannot be brought to market in a marketable state. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Circular No. 4411 is discriminatory and unconstitutional. They contended that Section 6(3) is unconstitutional for violating Articles 301 and 304 by imposing a higher tax rate on packing materials manufactured in Uttarakhand compared to other states. They also argued that packing materials should be considered ‘raw materials’. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State/Respondents regarding these issues. However, the outcome indicates that the State's position, as upheld by the Division Bench and Apex Court, was accepted.