Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89339 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 128 of 2018 Revisionist :- M/S. Suruchi Foods(P) Limited Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, Up Counsel for Revisionist :- Hitashu Kataria Anand,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents. 2. By means of instant revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Noida in the Second Appeal No.504 of 2014 (A.Y. 2010-11). 3. The instant revision has been admitted vide order dated 30.04.2018 on the questions of law no. i & ii of the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has made supplies of weaning foods etc., after manufacturing the same in their unit situated at B-17, Phase-II, Noida. 5. He further submits that the issue in hand has already been decided by this Court in the case of Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.19 of 2017 (The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. M/S Suruchi Foods Pvt. Ltd.), on 26.04.2022. 6. He further submits that the said order has been accepted by the State and once the said order has been accepted by the inter party, it is binding upon them. He further submits that once the said order has not been assailed before any competent Court, it cannot be permitted to take a different view in the subsequent assessment order. 7. In support of his claim, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise; 2005 0 Supreme (SC) 940. 8. He further submits that this Court in the case of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s. Vikalp Construction Company (Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.96/2023), decided on 15.12.2023. 9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that against the provisional assessment order, this Court has upheld the order of the tribunal in favour of the revisionist. 11. Further, the record shows that the said order has not been assailed and has been accepted. Once the revenue has accepted it and against the same, the revenue has not gone in appeal, it may not be permitted to take a different view. 12. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.5 in M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra), which read as under:- "In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd . (supra) cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary." 13. Similarly, this Court in the case of M/S Vikalp Construction Company (supra) has taken the same view and as such, the issue in hand is squarely covered inter parties. 14. Accordingly, once the issue in hand is covered in favor of the revisionist dealer in view of the order passed in the case of M/s Suruchi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the present revision is allowed in the same terms of order passed in M/s Suruchi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 15. Accordingly, the questions of law are answered in favor of the revisionist and against the revenue. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad