{"id":174637,"date":"2005-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005"},"modified":"2016-04-09T22:31:08","modified_gmt":"2016-04-09T17:01:08","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: S.N. Variava, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3742 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSwadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. Variava & Tarun Chatterjee\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
S.N. VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is against the Judgment dated 13th October, 1998 passed by the
\nAllahabad High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent is a manufacturer and dealer of Polyester Staples Fiber. It
\nhad collected, from its customers, tax in excess of what was prescribed. It
\nis an admitted position that these amounts were deposited with the
\nGovernment. The Respondent had challenged the assessment and its Appeal was
\nallowed. As the tax liability was held to be lower, the concerned Officer
\npassed an Order of refund but directed that the amount be deposited in the
\nTreasury in view of Section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
In the Appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the
\nextent of Rs. 417 but confirmed the Order of the Assessing Authority
\ndirecting deposit of the balance amount. The Respondent then filed an
\nAppeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal who directed refund of the excess
\namount in spite of the provisions of Section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax
\nAct. The Revision filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court by
\nthe impugned judgment. The High Court followed two earlier Judgments of
\nthat Court one of which was the case of one Kheria Brothers. In this case,
\nrelying on the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Anr.
\nv. M\/s Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co.,<\/a> reported in [1974] 3 SCC 121,
\nthe Allahabad High Court struck down Section 29-A as being beyond the
\nlegislative competence of the State Government. At the time the impugned
\nJudgment was passed an Appeal, against the High Court’s Judgment in Kheria
\nBrothers case was pending in this court.\n<\/p>\n
At this stage Section 29-A must be set out. Section 29-A reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Where any amount is realized from any person by any dealer purporting to
\ndo so by way of realization of tax on the sale of any goods to such person,
\nsuch dealer shall deposit the entire amount so realized into the Government
\nTreasury, within such period as may be prescribed notwithstanding that the
\ndealer is not liable to pay such amount as tax or that only a part of it is
\ndue from him as tax under this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 29-A set was amended on 22nd August 1971 to read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“29-A. (1) Where any amount is realized from any person  by any dealer
\npurporting to do so by way of realization of tax on the sale of any goods
\nto such person, such dealer shall deposit the entire amount so realized
\ninto the Government treasury, within such period as may be prescribed,
\nnotwithstanding that the dealer is not liable to pay such amount as tax or
\nthat only a part of it is due from him as tax under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Any amount deposited by any dealer under sub-section (1) shall, to the
\nextent it is not due as tax, be held by the State Government in trust for
\nthe person from whom it was realized by the dealer, or for his legal
\nrepresentatives, and the deposit shall discharge such dealer of the
\nliability in respect thereof to the extent of the deposit.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where any amount is deposited by any dealer under sub-section (1), such
\namount or any part thereof shall, on a claim being made in that behalf in
\nsuch form as may be prescribed, be refunded, in the manner prescribed, to
\nthe person from whom such dealer had actually realized such amount or part,
\nor to his legal representatives, and to no other person:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no such claim shall be entertained after the expiry of three
\nyears from the date of the order of assessment or one year from the date of
\nthe final order on appeal, revision or reference, if any, in respect
\nthereof, whichever is later.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- The expression `final order on appeal, revision or reference’
\nincludes an order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 32, Article
\n132, Article 133, Article 136 or Article 137, or by the High Court under
\nArticle 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
The constitutional validity of the amended provision was challenged. The
\nAllahabad High Court held the amended Section 29-A to be ultra vires the
\npower of the State Legislature to enact and declared the provision to be
\nunconstitutional. This Court in M\/s Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Cos.
\ncase (supra) upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court and held the
\namended Section 29-A to be unconstitutional. The Court relied upon the
\ndecision of this Court in the case of Abdul Quader & Co. v. Sales Tax
\nOfficer, Hyderabad,<\/a> reported in [1964] 6 SCR 867, wherein it was observed
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“The provision however is attempted to be justified on the ground that
\nthough it may not be open to a State Legislature to make provision for the
\nrecovery any amount which is not a tax under Entry 54 of List II in a law
\nmade for that purpose, it would still be open to the Legislature to provide
\nfor paying over all the amounts collected by way of tax by persons, even
\nthough they really are not exigible as tax, as part of the incidental and
\nancillary power to make provision for the levy and collection of such
\ntax……………………. But where the legislation under the relevant
\nentry proceeds on the basis that the amount concerned is not a tax exigible
\nunder the law made under that entry, but even so lays down that though it
\nis not exigible under the law, it shall be paid over to Government, merely
\nbecause some dealers by mistake or otherwise have collected it as tax, it
\nis difficult to see how such a provision can be ancillary or incidental to
\nthe collection of tax legitimately due under a law made under the relevant
\ntaxing entry.”\n<\/p>\n
In M\/s Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co’s case reliance was also placed
\nupon the observations of this Court in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v.
\nState of Bihar and Anr.,<\/a> reported in [1970] 1 SCC 354, to the following
\neffect:-\n<\/p>\n
“A provision which enables the dealer to pass on the liability for payment
\nof tax is incidental to legislation for sales-tax. But we are unable to
\nhold that a provision under which a dealer is called upon to pay to the
\nState an amount which has been collected by him on a representation –
\nexpress or implied – that an equal amount is payable by him under the Bihar
\nSales Tax Act, is a provision incidental to the power to levy `tax on sale
\nor purchase of goods’ within the meaning of Entry 54, List II of the
\nSeventh Schedule. Entry 54, List II of the Seventh Schedule comprehends the
\npower to impose tax, to prescribe machinery for collecting the tax, to
\ndesignate officers by whom the liability may be imposed and to prescribe
\nthe authority, obligation and indemnity of the officers. The State
\nLegislatures may under Entry 54, List II be competent to enact a law in
\nrespect of matters necessarily incidental to `tax on the sale and purchase
\nof goods’. But a provision compelling a dealer who has deliberately or
\nerroneously recovered an amount from the purchaser on a representation that
\nhe is entitled to recover it to recoup himself for payment of tax, to pay
\nover that amount to the State cannot, in our judgment, be regarded as
\nnecessarily incidental to Entry 54, List II. In effect the provision is one
\nfor levying an amount as tax which the State is incompetent to levy. A mere
\ndevice cannot be permitted to defeat the provisions of the Constitution by
\nclothing the claim in the form of a demand for depositing the money with
\nthe State which the dealer has collected, but which he was not entitled to
\ncollect.”\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter a seven Judge bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Joshi,
\nSales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Ors. v. Ajit Mills Limited and Anr., etc.,
\nreported in [1977] 4 SCC 98 disapproved of Abdul Quadir’s and M\/s Annapurna
\nBiscuit Manufacturing Cos’ cases. In this case, the question, under the
\nBombay Sales Tax Act, was whether the State Legislature had legislative
\ncompetence to make a provision directing a dealer to deposit the amount of
\ntax collected by him from a customer in excess of the prescribed tax. It
\nwas held that such a provision would be within the legislative competence
\nas a punitive measure to protect public interest in the enforcement of
\nfiscal legislation. It was held that this was within the implied powers of
\nthe State Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
Following R.S. Joshi’s case, a Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the
\nconstitutional validity of Section 29-A (as it stood prior to its
\namendment) in the case of M\/s Kasturi Lal Harlal v. State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in [1986] 4 SCC 704. The Constitution Bench noted that this
\nquestion stood concluded by R.S. Joshi’s case (supra). It also took note of
\nAshoka Marketing’s case (supra) and observed that the decision in Ashoka
\nMarketing’s case did not follow an earlier decision in Orient Paper Mills
\nLtd. v. State of Orissa,<\/a> reported in [1962] 1 SCR 549. It was held that
\nR.S. Joshi’s case disapproved of the decision in Ashoka Marketing’s case
\nand reaffirmed the view taken in Orient Paper Mills’s case. The
\nConstitution Bench also took note of a subsequent decision in the case of
\nState of Orissa v. Cement Ltd.,<\/a> [1995] Supp. SCC 608, wherein also Ashoka
\nMarketing’s case was held to have been dissented in R.S. Joshi’s case. The
\nConstitution Bench of this Court upheld the constitutionality of the
\nunamended Section 29-A and held that it was within the legislative
\ncompetence of the State Legislature to enact.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal in Kheria Brothers case thereafter reached hearing before a two-
\nJudge Bench of this court which referred the matter to a three Judge Bench
\nin view of the above mentioned decisions of this court. However
\nsubsequently a three Judge Bench of this Court has allowed the Appeal in
\nthe decision reported in [1999] 8 SCC 137. The three Judge Bench has held
\nthat the Judgment in M\/s Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Cos’ case stands
\noverruled. We are in agreement with this view.\n<\/p>\n
Faced with this situation, it was submitted by Mr. Goel that even if the
\ndecision in Annapurna Biscuit’s case is held to be erroneous, the position
\nwill be that amended Section 29-A having declared to be void and beyond the
\nlegislative competence, cannot revive by itself. It was submitted that the
\nSection can only revive if it is re-enacted. In support of this submission,
\nreliance was placed upon certain observations made in the case of Behram
\nKhurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay,<\/a> reported in [1955] 1 SCR 613;
\nSaghir Ahmad v. The State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> reported in [1955] 1 SCR 707;
\nDeep Chand v. State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> reported in AIR (1959) SC 648;
\nMahendra Lal Jaini v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,<\/a> reported in
\n[1963] Supp. 1 SCR 912 and B. Shama Rao v. The Union Territory of
\nPondicherry,<\/a> reported in [1967] 2 SCR 650.\n<\/p>\n
We do not agree with this submission. However, in our view, it is not at
\nall necessary to go into this submission. In this case, we are concerned
\nwith the unamended Section 29-A. Even though the Allahabad High Court had
\nheld this provision to be unconstitutional, in the Appeal carried to the
\nCourt it has been declared that the Section was within the legislative
\ncompetence of the State Legislature. The Appeal was a continuation of the
\nsame proceeding and the finality could only be given by the Judgment of
\nthis Court. Thus in any view of the matter it  will have to be held that
\nunamended section 29-A always remained on the statute book and required no
\nre-enactment. Thus, even if the submission of Mr. Goel is accepted, the
\neffect would be that it is only the amended Section 29-A which might
\nrequire re-enactment and in its absence the unamended section 29-A would
\ncontinue to be valid and effective. In that event the amendments of 1971
\nwould be deemed never to have taken place. Even under the unamended Section
\n29-A the amount cannot be refunded to the Respondent. It could only be
\nrefunded to the party from whom it was wrongly collected. No such party has
\nmade such a claim for refund. Therefore, directing this amount to be
\ndeposited in the Treasury was correct. We however clarify that we are not
\nin agreement with the submission that amended Section 29-A would require
\nre-enactment.\n<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned Judgment and the
\nJudgment of the Trade Tax Tribunal and restore the Order of the
\nCommissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 Author: S Variava Bench: S.N. Variava, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3742 of 2000 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. RESPONDENT: Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2005 BENCH: S.N. Variava & Tarun Chatterjee JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-09T17:01:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-09T17:01:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2159,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-09T17:01:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-09T17:01:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-09T17:01:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005"},"wordCount":2159,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005","name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-09T17:01:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-swadeshi-polytax-ltd-ghaziabad-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Swadeshi Polytax Ltd., Ghaziabad on 28 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}