Case Details: Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Versus Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. (2025) 30 Centax 288 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- Ms Poornima Singh, Ms Sthavi Ashtana, Advs. & Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv., Narinder K. Verma, Khubaid Shakeel, Advs. & Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee, a sugar manufacturing unit, procured diesel for transporting sugarcane from cane purchase centres to its factory premises and claimed concessional tax benefit under Notification dated 10-08-2017, which extended a reduced rate of tax to all industrial units for diesel used in the manufacture of taxable goods. Thereafter, the assessee also availed benefit under Notification dated 07-12-2019, which granted concessional tax treatment specifically to sugar manufacturing units for diesel used in transporting sugarcane from cane purchase centres to the factory gate. The assessing authority denied the assessee’s claim under Notification dated 10-08-2017, reasoning that having already availed the benefit under Notification dated 07-12-2019, the assessee was not entitled to the former.
This view was upheld by both the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, and the Commercial Tax Tribunal. Challenging this, the assessee filed a revision before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, submitting that Notification dated 10-08-2017 did not contain any restrictive clause barring its applicability in cases where benefit under Notification dated 07-12-2019 had been taken. The High Court accepted this contention and allowed the revision. Aggrieved, the Department of Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no error in the decision of the High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The Court observed that Notification dated 10-08-2017 applied generally to all industrial units and did not contain any provision excluding sugar manufacturing units that had availed benefit under Notification dated 07-12-2019. Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2024) 23 Centax 142 (All.) — Affirmed [Paras 1, 3, 5]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification dated 10-8-2017 [Para 1]
