1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84529 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 17 of 2018 Revisionist :- Daulat Rice And General Mills Opposite Party :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Pratik J. Nagar,Supriya Pratik Nagar WITH Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 18 of 2018 Revisionist :- Daulat Rice And General Mills Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Pratik J. Nagar,Supriya Pratik Nagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. WITH Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1575 of 2006 Revisionist :- M/S Phool Chand Rice And General Mill Saharanpur Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- R.D. Gupta,Lokesh Mittal Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C. WITH Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1576 of 2006 Revisionist :- M/S Phool Chand Rice And General Mill Saharanpur Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- R.D. Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C. HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J. 1. Heard Mr. Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. B.K. Pandey learned ACSC for the State – respondent. 2. The issue involved in all the aforesaid revisions are common, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid revisions are decided by the common order treating the Sales / Trade Tax Revision No. 17 of 2018 as leading case. 2 Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 17 of 2018 3. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 138 of 2007 (A.Y. 2005-06). 4. The following questions of law are being raised by the revisionist:- "(a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities are legally justified in disallowing the benefit of Section 15 (c) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal as well as the Authorities below were justified in relying upon the decision of M/s Aryavarth Chawal Udyog and others Vs. State of UP and others, reported in 2008 NTN Volume 37 page 231, which is pending consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6717-6720 of 2009 , M/s Bansal Modern Rice Mill and others Vs. State of UP and others?” 5. At the very outset, Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the benefit of purchase tax paid on paddy has rightly been rejected by the assessing authority, which was confirmed by the first appellate court against which the revisionists have preferred second appeal, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present bunch of revisions has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2008 UPTC, 881. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists could not dispute the aforesaid fact. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 8. The assessing authority while passing the assessment order has rejected the claim of amount paid as tax on the purchase of paddy out of which rice was produced and sold as interstate. 3 9. The issue in hand is not res-integra. 10. This Court in the case of M/s Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others (supra), has held that the benefit of tax paid on purchase of rice cannot be claimed as per Section 15 (c) of Central Sales Tax Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as referred herein above, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 12. All the aforesaid revisions are dismissed. 13. The questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue and against the revisionists. Order Date :-20.5.2025 Rahul Dwivedi Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad