Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. vs M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd.

Civil AppealDecided 19 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 6396-6397 of 2009
M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari

Background

M/s Shaw Scott Distillery (P) Ltd. owed substantial trade tax arrears for 1980-82. Before any recovery proceedings began, it sold its plant, machinery, and goods to a purchaser (later renamed M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd.) in December 1985 and January 1986 for about Rs. 12.12 lakh. Years later, after reassessment and issuance of a recovery certificate against the original assessee, the tax department invoked Section 34 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act to endorse that recovery certificate against the purchaser as well, treating the earlier sale as a fraudulent transfer. The purchaser challenged this endorsement, and the Trade Tax Tribunal and later the Allahabad High Court both ruled in its favour, prompting the Revenue to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 34 only applies when property is transferred during the pendency of tax proceedings with intent to defraud the revenue, and does not affect a bona fide transferee for value. Here, at the time of the 1985-86 sale, no assessment or recovery proceedings were pending against the original assessee (the earlier assessment had concluded in 1984 and was reopened only in 1988, with the recovery certificate issued only in 1990). Since the sale predated any pending proceedings and its consideration was undisputed, Section 34 could not be invoked against the purchaser. The Court found no error in the High Court's dismissal of the Revenue's revision applications and dismissed both appeals with no costs.

Lesson Learnt

A tax authority cannot invalidate a genuine, paid-for sale of property to recover another party's tax dues unless the transfer actually took place while proceedings against the defaulter were pending and was made with intent to defraud the revenue: a bona fide purchaser for value who bought before any such proceedings began is protected.

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. vs M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware