2022 (12) TMI 1378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hedule of the Act, and since the petitioner is one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are being heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. The Tax period involved in these Writ Petitions is September, 2006 to March, 2007 and April, 2007 to March, 2008. 3. Heard Sri. S. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. L. Venkateshwar Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the record. 4. Petitioner contends that it is a manufacturer of Chlormint and Happydent; that the said products are liable to be classified as falling under Entry-88 of 4th Schedule to the Act, and are subject to tax @ 4% during the relevant period; and that the Assessing Authority erred in class....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing under Entry-88 of the IV-Schedule of the Act. 7. Learned Senior Counsel would further contends that the said order of the Tribunal has attained finality inasmuch as the State did not choose to challenge the same before this Court. 8. He further contends that a similar issue covering the period from April, 2006 to July, 2006 under the provisions of Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005, has fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in a Revision filed by the Revenue, and the Division Bench also took a view that the goods, namely Chlormint and Happydent, as manufactured by the assessee-respondent therein,(who is the petitioner in the present writ petitions), under the drug licence issued to it by the Director of Ayu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d subjecting the goods to tax need to be considered by this Court, when an assessee, on whom burden is cast, fails to discharge the same. 12. We have taken note of the respective submissions. 13. It is not in dispute that the same goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner fell for consideration before the High Court of Uttarakhand as well as the High Court of Allahabad. The period involved in the matter before the Uttarakhand High Court is in proximity to the period involved in the present Writ Petitions, and that the Uttarakhand High Court while dismissing the Revision preferred by the State held that 'chlormint with herbosole' and 'happydent' manufactured by the assessee under valid drug licence are ayurvedic medicin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d view that there are no justiciable grounds to take a different view there from, for us to sustain the order of assessment passed by the respondent. 19. Further, the Assessing Authority in the assessment justified his action by observing as under: "In the case M/s. Hyderabad Insulated Wire (P) Ltd. vs. The CCT of A.P. Hyd (1990) 11 AP STJ 267 and M/s. Sankar Picture Palace Vs. The ETO & ors. (1992) 14 APSTJ 94 the Hon'ble AP High Court has categorically held that in the fiscal statutes, each assessment year is a different unit itself and the decision taken in one assessment period is not binding in respect of subsequent assessment period or for other period. As such there is no res-judicata in tax matters and hence this will not pre....