[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reckitt Benckiser India Private ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36204
1 WP-10820-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 10 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10820 of 2020
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THR. MR. RAJESH
KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R Jawaharlal learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1350 of 2023
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED C/O CARRY FAST
AGENCIES THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R Jawaharlal learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
WRIT PETITION No. 1665 of 2023
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R Jawaharlal learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 11-12-2025
13:14:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36204
2 WP-10820-2020
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
Regard being had to the similitude of the facts, grounds and issue, all these
three petitions are being decided by the common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts are noted from WP No.10820/2020.
The petitioner has challenged the illegality and validity of the show cause notice
issued by the respondent no.3 under section 52 of the MP Value Added Tax, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as MP VAT) for imposition of penalty for the Assessment
year 2008-09 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal.
3. The principal legal ground of challenge to the Impugned Orders, in the
three writ petitions, is that the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (MPVAT
Act) as well as the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act (MPET Act), stood
repealed/obliterated w.e.f. 16.09.2016, when the Constitution (101 st Amendment)
Act, 2016 (CAA, 2016) came into force, introducing Goods and Service Tax
(GST) laws and replacing with VAT laws in States and other legislation, including
MPET Acts. Alternatively, the MPVAT Act and MPET Act, stood repealed w.e.f.
12.06.2017, when Madhya Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act (MPGST)came
into force from 15.09.2017, when the period of one year under Section 19 of the
CAA, 2016, expired.
4. The facts of the case are that after the MPVAT Act and MPET Act stood
omitted, upon deletion of Entry 52 to List II of the Constitution and substitution of
Entry 54 by the CAA, 2016, the power to levy VAT, Entry Tax etc., on goods also
stood omitted. Hence, the Respondent did not have the power to issue the
Impugned Orders/Show Cause Notice.
5. The Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the Show Cause
Notice dated 26.06.2020 issued by the Respondent No.3 under Section 52 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36204
3 WP-10820-2020
MP VAT Act 2002, for imposition of penalty for Assessment Year (AY)2008-09.
Earlier, an Assessment Order dated 25.04.2011 was issued, rejecting the
classification adopted by the Petitioner for Harpic Disinfectant Toilet Cleaner (in
short "Harpic"), Lizol Disinfectant Floor Cleaner (in short "Lizol") and Dettol
Antiseptic Liquid (in short "Dettol"). The Respondent No. 3 also proposed to
initiate penalty proceedings under Section 52 of the MP VAT Act. However, no
separate Show Cause Notice for penalty, was issued.
6. Against the Assessment Order, the Petitioner filed first appeal and on its
dismissal, filed a second appeal before the Tax Board, which was also rejected, by
Order dated 23.01.2018. The Petitioner has. challenged the Tax Board Order,
before this High Court in VAT Appeal No. 63 of 2018.
7. On 26.06.2020, nine (09) years after issuance of Assessment Order and
nearly three years, after MPVAT Act was repealed and replaced by MP GST Act,
the Respondent No. 3 issued the Impugned Show Cause Notice in short, the
"Impugned SCN", directing the Petitioner to show cause as to why penalty under
Section 52 of the MPVAT, ought not be imposed.
8. In addition to other grounds pleaded in the writ petition, the principal
submission of the Petitioner is that no penalty proceedings can be initiated by the
Impugned SCN dated 26.06.2020, as MP VAT Act itself stood repealed and
replaced on 12.06.2017 (in terms of Section 19 of the CAA, 2016, which came
into force on 16.09.2016). In terms of CAA, 2016, the MP GST Act, 2017 came
into force on 12.06.2017, replacing MP VAT Act. Hence, no proceedings can be
initiated by the Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of the MPVAT Act after
12.06.2017.
9. Thus, it is argued that no penalty proceedings can be initiated by the
impugned show cause notice as the MP VAT Act stood repealed and replaced on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36204
4 WP-10820-2020
12.06.2017, and the MP GST Act, 2018 came into force on 12.06.2017, replacing
the MP VAT Act.
10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue
involved in the present cases has already been answered by the Apex Court in the
case of State of Telangana and Ors Vs. Trimula Constructions reported in 2023
SC Online SC 1376.
11. On the previous date, learned counsel for the respondent/state was
granted time to examine the same and on examining the same, learned counsel for
the respondent/state fairly submits that the aforesaid legal issue has already been
answered in the said judgment.
12. Para no.128 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
128. In view of the foregoing discussion and conclusions, the
findings of the Court in these cases are:
(i) Section 19 of the Constitution (101st
Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246-A enacted
in exercise of constituent power, formed part of the
transitional arrangement for the limited duration of
its Operation, and had the effect of continuing the
operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s)
specified by it and, by virtue of its operation,
allowed State Legislatures andParliament to
amendor repeal such existing laws.
(ii) Since other provisions of the said Amendment
Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation
from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and
Article 246-A reflected the constituent expression
that existing laws would continue and could be
amended. The source jor fields of legislation, to
the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for
'a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a
result, there were no limitations on the power to
amend.
(iii) The above finding is in view of the vacuum
created by the coming into force of the 101st
Amendment, which resulted in deletion of the
heads of legislation in the two lists aforesaid.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36204
5 WP-10820-2020
(iv) The amendments in question, made to the
Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act,
after 1-7-2017, were correctly held void, for want
of legislative competence, by the two High Courts
(Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The
judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the
above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside;
the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the
extent it required predeposit, is held void.''
13. Since the question of law involved in the present cases has already
been answered and the issue has already been decided, therefore, the present
petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice issued under section 52 of
the MP VAT Act is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to
proceed in accordance with law, if so advised.
With the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
