M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL versus GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 19-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 516
516
M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL
v.
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8486 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE, SURYA KANT, M. M. SUNDRESH,
SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Tax/Taxation– Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special
Importance) Act, 1957 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Delhi Sales
Tax Act, 1975 – Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Whether, Pan Masala, which contains
tobacco and gutka, covered by an Entry in the First Schedule to
the ADE Act, are taxable by the State under the 1975 Act and/or the
1948 Act and/or the 1959 Act – Held: The ADE Act has been enacted
to provide for the levy and collection of additional duties of excise
in respect of certain goods, over and above the duties of excise
levied under the Central Excise Act,1944 – Once goods are
chargeable under the ADE Act, the State cannot levy sales tax on
the same goods under a State enactment – There is no conflict
between the Kothari Products line of cases and the Agra Belting line
of cases – There being no conflict, the reference to Constitution
Bench is incompetent and the cases may be placed for decision
before the regular Bench.
Constitution of India – Article 145– Principle of stare decisis
– Doctrine of precedents– Guidelines for overruling an earlier
decision– Held: Per Indira Banerjee, J. (for herself and for Surya
Kant, M.M. and Sundresh, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.): This question
is answered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister and Others
reported as (2021) 8 JT 337, in view of which it is not necessary for
this Court to answer the question – In view of Article 145(5)
concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be
considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court – The majority
decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges
constituting the majority – Per Hemant Gupta, J. (Concurring): A
decision delivered by a Bench of largest strength is binding on any
subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength – It is the strength
of the Bench and not number of Judges who have taken a particular
view which is said to be relevant – A Bench of lesser quorum cannot
disagree or dissent from the view of law taken by a Bench of larger
quorum – Thus, the numerical strength of the Judges taking a
particular view is not relevant, but the Bench strength is
determinative of the binding nature of the Judgment.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister and
Others. (2021) 8 SCC 1 : 2021 (8) JT 337; Central
Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v. State
of Maharashtra and Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673 : [2004] 6
Suppl. SCR 1054; Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir
Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc. (1989) 2 SCC 754 : [1989] 3
SCR 316 – followed.
Kothari Products Ltd. v. State of A.P (2000) 9 SCC 263
: 2000 (3) JT 554; Central Sales Tax vs. Agra Belting
Work (1987) 3 SCC 140 : [1987] 3 SCR 93 – discussed.
Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India and others
(2018) 11 SCC 305 : [2017] 8 SCR 711; Union of
India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754 : [1989]
3 SCR 316; Ningappa Ramappa Kurbar v. Emperor
1941 SCC OnLine Bom 41 : AIR 1941 Bom 408;
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v Union
of India (2016) 5 SCC 1 : [2015] 13 SCR 1; Harper
v. National Coal Board [1974] QB 614; Mahalakshmi
Oil Mills v. State of A.P. (1989) 1 SCC 164 : [1988]
2 Suppl. SCR 1088; Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v.
State of U.P (2005) 2 SCC 515 : [2005] 1 SCR 732;
State of Orrisa vs. Radhey Shyam Gudakhu Factory
(2018) 11 SCC 505; Gulabchand Harekchand v. State
of West Bengal 1984 SCC Online Cal 274; Reliance
Trading Company, Kerala v. State of Kerala (2011)
15 SCC 762; Sales Tax Officer, Sector-IX, Kanpur
vs. Dealing Dairy Products and Anr. (1994) Supp. 2
M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIR. SHRI
PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
SCC 639; State of Bihar and Others v. Krishna Kumar
Kabra and Another (1997) 9 SCC 763 – referred to.
State of Gujarat v Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi and
Ors. AIR 1962 Guj 128 – approved.
Case Law Refere
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.