DHARMPAL SATYAPAL LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Revisionist deals with the commodity called 'Double Mazza' (Pan Masala with Tobacco). It was recited under An-nexure-I with penalty of Rs. 84,000/- under Section 15A(1)(o) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. According to the revisionist, there was stock transfer of fifty cartons of 'Double Mazza' Pan Masala, having a total value of Rs. 3,12,500/- from Noida (U.P.) to Haldwani (Uttarakhand). It was checked by the officer and, on that basis, proceedings were taken under Section 28A read with Section 13A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Finding the value of the goods at Rs. 2,10,000/-, penalty was levied @ 40%, i.e. Rs. 84,000/-. The revisionist lost before the 1st Appellate Authority as well as before the Tribunal and now it is before us. Following substantial questions of law, i.e. question Nos. (i), (ii) & (v) were pressed before us:-

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel drew our attention to a judgment of the Apex Court, (M/s. Kothari Product Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., 2000 STI 165). That is a case, which arose under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The revisionist therein was engaged in manufacture and sale of Gutka under the brand name 'Pan Parag'. Section 8 of the State Sales Tax Act provided for exemption from tax in respect of goods under the Fourth Schedule. Entry 7 of the Fourth Schedule referred tobacco and the explanation in this behalf in regard to Entry 7 was "shall be goods included in the relevant heads and sub-heads of the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, but does not include goods, where no additional duties of Excise are leviable under that Schedule". The said Additional Duties of Excise Act, in Entry 2404 referred to "gudaku" under the sub-heading "other manufactured tobacco". Thereafter, we find the following reasoning given in Para 4 of the said judgment:-