The Allahabad High Court has granted interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited by staying the operation of a tax adjudication order dated December 17, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
The case raises a crucial legal question on whether tin sheds erected for manufacturing purposes should be classified as “goods” or treated as “immovable property.”
The writ petition, registered as Writ Tax No. 1844 of 2026, was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi. The petitioner challenged the adjudication order on the ground that the issue involved is purely legal in nature and has already been settled by the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. However, the High Court chose to entertain the writ petition, noting that the dispute centers on a pure question of law. The Court observed that such a legal issue—particularly one potentially settled by higher judicial precedent—justifies intervention under writ jurisdiction.
Importantly, the Court took note of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharti Airtel Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, which prima facie supports the petitioner’s position. The bench indicated that relevant portions of that judgment appear to address the classification issue in favor of the assessee.
The High Court also remarked that although the adjudicating authority had considered the petitioner’s objections, it dismissed them primarily on the basis that the petitioner was not a “service provider.” The Court appeared unconvinced by this reasoning, especially given the broader legal context and precedent cited.
The Court has directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, with a rejoinder, if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter. The matter will be listed for further hearing subsequently.
The Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned adjudication order, providing interim relief to Hindustan Unilever.
Case Details
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case No.: Writ Tax No. – 1844 of 2026
Date: 30/03/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Abhishek Ghosh
Counsel For Respondent: C.S.C.
Read More: SGST Dept. Lack Jurisdiction Over IGST on Imports: AP HC Quashes Proceedings Against Avanti Feeds
