{"id":201144,"date":"2008-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-21T06:31:12","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T01:01:12","slug":"commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6636 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAssociated Distributors Ltd.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/05\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nAshok Bhan &amp; Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nReportable<\/p>\n<p>WITH<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.3270 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C)<br \/>\nNo.13762 of 2003, Civil Appeal No.3271 of 2008 arising<br \/>\nout of SLP (C) No.6196 of 2006 AND Civil Appeal No.2112 of<br \/>\n2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dalveer Bhandari, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThese appeals are directed against the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 09.11.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at<br \/>\nAllahabad passed in Trade Tax Revision No.656 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIn these appeals, a common question of law arises,<br \/>\ntherefore, for the sake of convenience the facts of only Civil<br \/>\nAppeal No.6636 of 2002 are recapitulated.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe issue involved in these appeals is confined to the rate<br \/>\nof tax applicable on the sales of Bubble-gum.  According to the<br \/>\nappellant, Bubble-gum is taxable as an unclassified good and<br \/>\nwould attract the duty at the rate of 10% inclusive of<br \/>\nsurcharge.  In the impugned judgment, the High Court arrived<br \/>\nat the conclusion that Bubble-gum is a confectionery item<br \/>\nand, therefore, be taxed at the rate of 6.25%.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe Tax Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1994-<br \/>\n95 has levied the tax with additional tax at the rate of 10%<br \/>\ntreating Bubble-gum as unclassified and non-scheduled item.<br \/>\nIn an appeal filed by the respondent, the learned First<br \/>\nAppellate Court accepted the submission of the respondent<br \/>\nand taxed Bubble-gum at the rate of 6.25%.  The appellant<br \/>\naggrieved by the said order preferred the second appeal before<br \/>\nthe Sales Tax Tribunal, Branch-II Ghaziabad.  The Tribunal in<br \/>\ndetail discussed the controversy involved in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tUnder the UP Sales Tax Act, a notification fixing the rate<br \/>\nof tax on Bubble-gum for the year 1994-95 was not issued.<br \/>\nUnder the Government Notification No.Vya Ka.-2-1225\/Eleven<br \/>\ndated 31.3.92 and Notification No.Vya.Ka.-2-3403\/Eleven<br \/>\ndated 1.10.94, the liability for payment of tax has been fixed<br \/>\nfor Sweets, Sweetmeat, Namkeen, Cooked Food, Revadi,<br \/>\nGajak, Biscuit, Double-bread, Cake, Pastry, Rusk and the<br \/>\nproducts of Sugar under the UP Sales Tax Act, <\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt is pertinent to mention here that the official language<br \/>\nof the State of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi.  If any difference is<br \/>\nfound between the notifications in English and Hindi, the<br \/>\nnotification issued in Hindi will be applicable.  On the said<br \/>\nnotification, the courts have decided that confectionery comes<br \/>\nwithin sweets (mithai) and sweetmeat, but it has not been<br \/>\nmentioned that Bubble-gum comes within the category of a<br \/>\nSweet.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThis court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/402879\/\">Pappu Sweets and Biscuits &amp;<br \/>\nAnother v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow<\/a><br \/>\n(1998) 7 SCC 228 observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;12. &#8220;There is no doubt that a toffee is a<br \/>\nsweetmeat, as understood by the people where<br \/>\ntoffee originated&#8221; and that &#8220;Toffee and other<br \/>\nthings of that nature are of foreign origin and<br \/>\nare sweets or sweetmeat according to those<br \/>\npeople and their nature cannot be changed<br \/>\nsimply because their origin is different from<br \/>\nwhat is usually conveyed by the word &#8216;mithai&#8217;<br \/>\nin this part of the country&#8221;, the High Court<br \/>\npreferred to decide the issue by relying upon<br \/>\nhow toffee is understood by the people of the<br \/>\ncountry where it originated rather than by<br \/>\nconsidering how &#8220;toffee&#8221; is understood in India<br \/>\nand more particularly in the State of U.P. As<br \/>\nheld by this Court in CCE v. Parle Exports (P)<br \/>\nLtd. (1989) 1 SCC 345 p. 357 para 17:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The words used in the<br \/>\nprovision, imposing taxes or<br \/>\ngranting exemption should be<br \/>\nunderstood in the same way in<br \/>\nwhich these are understood in<br \/>\nordinary parlance in the area in<br \/>\nwhich the law is in force or by the<br \/>\npeople who ordinarily deal with<br \/>\nthem.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In that case, the question that had arisen for<br \/>\nconsideration was whether non-alcoholic beverage<br \/>\nbases are food products or food preparations in<br \/>\nterms of Central Excise Notification No. 55\/75 dated<br \/>\n1-3-1975. This Court observed that non-alcoholic<br \/>\nbeverages are not understood in India as food<br \/>\nproducts or food preparations, though they might<br \/>\nhave been regarded as such in foreign countries.<br \/>\nThe High Court, therefore, should have applied the<br \/>\ntest of popular parlance by finding out how toffee is<br \/>\nunderstood in the country and more particularly in<br \/>\nthe State of U.P. No evidence was led by the State to<br \/>\nsubstantiate its case that &#8220;toffee&#8221; is considered as<br \/>\nsweetmeat either by the dealers in toffees or by the<br \/>\nconsumers. On the other hand, evidence was led by<br \/>\nthe appellant in CA No. 1692 of 1997 indicating that<br \/>\ntoffee is not considered as sweetmeat, that they are<br \/>\nnot sold in shops selling sweetmeats but are sold in<br \/>\nshops selling confectioneries or other types of goods,<br \/>\nand that the consumers do not buy toffees as<br \/>\nsweetmeat or treat them as such. It was, however,<br \/>\ncontended by the learned counsel for the State that<br \/>\nsometime before this exemption notification was<br \/>\nissued by the State, the Allahabad High Court had<br \/>\nin two cases held that toffee is a sweetmeat. But it<br \/>\nwas so held in a different context and no evidence<br \/>\nwas led by the State to show that thereafter, the<br \/>\ndealers in toffees and consumers started treating<br \/>\nthem as sweetmeat. In the Hindi version of the<br \/>\nnotification for the word sweetmeat the word<br \/>\n&#8220;mithai&#8221; is used. The word &#8220;mithai&#8221; has a definite<br \/>\nconnotation and it can be said with reasonable<br \/>\namount of certainty that people in this country do<br \/>\nnot consider toffee as &#8220;mithai&#8221;. The High Court<br \/>\ncommitted a grave error in holding that as some<br \/>\nmanufacturers of toffees sell their products by<br \/>\ndescribing them as sweets it can be said that in<br \/>\ncommercial circles toffee is known as sweetmeat.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>If the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is properly<br \/>\ncomprehended then Bubble-gum in the common parlance<br \/>\ncannot be construed as Mithai (Sweetmeat).  When we apply<br \/>\ncommon parlance test and in fact ask someone to bring the<br \/>\nsweets from the market, he will never bring Bubble-gum.  In<br \/>\ncommon parlance, even items of confectionery will not be<br \/>\nconstrued as sweetmeat (mithai).  In fact, Bubble-gum is not<br \/>\nan item for eating.  It is kept in the mouth and after chewing<br \/>\nthe same is thrown out.  The Bubble-gum while kept in the<br \/>\nmouth by the children is also inflated as a balloon.  In fact, it<br \/>\nis used as a &#8216;mouth freshener&#8217;.  It is not made only of sugar.  It<br \/>\ncontains gum base, vexes etc. along with sugar.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAccording to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, Bubble-gum<br \/>\nis a type of chewing gum especially designed for blowing<br \/>\nbubbles.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe Commissioner, Sales Tax, UP has relied on judgment<br \/>\nin Nutrine Chewing Gum Products Co. Pvt. Ltd., Arya<br \/>\nNagar, Lucknow (STI 1985 page 21) and observed that:-<br \/>\n&#8220;In chewing-gum, sugar is an almost<br \/>\ninsignificant.over it is not eatable.  Its use is<br \/>\nentirely different. Children use it just for a fun and<br \/>\nathletes for controlling the breath.  In common<br \/>\nparlance also nobody treats it as an item of<br \/>\nconfectionery.  I, therefore, hold that chewing-gum<br \/>\nis an unclassified item.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, it is clear that Chewing-gum and Bubble-gum do not fall<br \/>\nin the category of Sweetmeat (mithai).  The learned appellate<br \/>\nCourt has relied on the judgment dated 4.4.1998 delivered by<br \/>\nthe Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No.449 of 1992 titled<br \/>\nGum Products Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Commissioner,<br \/>\nSales Tax.  The Tribunal also relied on the judgment delivered<br \/>\nby the High Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/402879\/\">Pappu Sweets &amp; Biscuits v.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Trade Tax<\/a> (1995 UPTC 1089); Annapurna<br \/>\nBiscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of UP (1975 UPTC\n<\/p>\n<p>620) and the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur in<br \/>\nGum India Ltd. Kanpur v. Commissioner of Trade Tax<br \/>\n(1996 STD Tribunal 124).  According to these judgments,<br \/>\n&#8216;Chewing-gum and Bubble-gum, etc. are taxable as<br \/>\n&#8216;sweetmeat&#8217; and confectionery items.  The tribunal also<br \/>\nconsidered the judgment delivered in the case of Pappu<br \/>\nSweets (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe notification issued under UP Sales Tax Act, the<br \/>\nmithai (sweetmeat), cooked food, namkin etc. are under one<br \/>\nentry, but it does not mean that namkin and cooked food is<br \/>\nsweetmeat (mithai).  The copy of Part V &amp; XI and VIII of the<br \/>\nFood Analysis Book which has been submitted, there is a<br \/>\nmention about several items like bread, rusk, foodmeat, white<br \/>\nbread, cream role ice-cream, cone, Bombay Halwa etc.  In this<br \/>\none of items mentioned is Bubble-gum.  It does not mean that<br \/>\nBubble-gum is a sweetmeat (mithai) or confectionery.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe Tribunal clearly came to the conclusion that Bubble-<br \/>\ngum is neither sweetmeat (mithai) nor confectionery.  The tax<br \/>\nis liable to be paid on Bubble-gum as an unclassified item.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe respondent aggrieved by the said judgment of the<br \/>\ntribunal filed a revision petition before the High Court of<br \/>\njudicature at Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe High Court came to the specific finding that the<br \/>\nBubble-gum cannot be treated as a sweetmeat but it is<br \/>\ncertainly an item of confectionery.  In the impugned judgment,<br \/>\nthe High Court gave no reasons for its finding.  The<br \/>\nrespondent did not give any break up of the ingredients of<br \/>\nBubble-gum.  It was never the case of the respondent that<br \/>\nBubble-gum is a sugar product.  Confectionery is not even<br \/>\nmentioned in the notification.  The High Court ought to have<br \/>\nproperly comprehended the object of the notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tIn the facts and circumstances, the High Court should<br \/>\nhave applied common parlance test to determine proper<br \/>\ncategorization of Bubble-gum. It may be pertinent to mention<br \/>\nthat the respondent has not filed any appeal against the said<br \/>\nfinding of the High Court that Bubble-gum is not a sweetmeat.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tThe appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt dated 9.11.2001 has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tThe dispute is confined to the assessment year 1994-95.<br \/>\nAccording to the respondent, Bubble-gum was covered by the<br \/>\nspecific entry at Sl. No.48 of notification dated 7.9.1981 as<br \/>\namended by notification dated 31.3.1992.  The said entry<br \/>\nno.48  reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Sweetmeats, namkins, cooked food, rewari, gajak,<br \/>\nbiscuits, bread, cakes, pastries, buns, rusks and<br \/>\nsugar products, except any of the aforesaid goods<br \/>\nwhich are exempt under any other notifications<br \/>\nissued under UP Sales Tax Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>18. \tLearned counsel for the respondent made serious efforts<br \/>\nto demonstrate that the Bubble-gum should be classified in<br \/>\nthe category of &#8216;sweetmeat&#8217;.  He frankly conceded that the High<br \/>\nCourt gave a specific finding that the Bubble-gum cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as sweetmeat and that finding was not challenged by<br \/>\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tThe learned counsel for the respondent submitted that<br \/>\nthe Bubble-gum contains 60% sucrose by weight and it being<br \/>\na product of sugar, it should come in the category of<br \/>\nsweetmeat.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tThe respondent submitted that the expression &#8216;sugar<br \/>\nproducts&#8217; has not been defined.  It would mean and cover any<br \/>\nproduct which is very rich in sugar.  A product in which sugar<br \/>\nis predominant constituent over other constituents and which<br \/>\ndoes not have coverage by any other more specific heading is<br \/>\nclearly a sugar product.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.\tIn Pappu Sweets (supra), this court in order to give<br \/>\nmeaning to the notification issued by the State of Uttar<br \/>\nPradesh has laid great emphasis on the common parlance test.<br \/>\nThe court gave an apt illustration of a toffee.  Toffee in the<br \/>\ncountry of origin may be considered as sweetmeat but it<br \/>\ncannot be considered as mithai in this part of the country<br \/>\n(Uttar Pradesh).  Similarly, by no stretch of imagination, can<br \/>\nBubble-gum be considered as mithai in the State of Uttar<br \/>\nPradesh. Consequently, &#8216;Bubble-gum&#8217; is taxable as an<br \/>\nunclassified good.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.\tThese civil appeals are accordingly allowed and the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.  In the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their<br \/>\nown costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 Author: D Bhandari Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6636 of 2002 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. RESPONDENT: Associated Distributors Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/05\/2008 BENCH: Ashok Bhan &amp; Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J U [&hellip;]<\/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-201144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-21T01:01:12+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=\"10 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-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T01:01:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1907,\"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-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T01:01:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-21T01:01:12+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T01:01:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008"},"wordCount":1907,"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-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008","name":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T01:01:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-associated-distributors-ltd-on-5-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Associated Distributors Ltd on 5 May, 2008"}]},{"@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\/201144","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=201144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201144\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}