Uttarakhand High Court
CTR/23/2021 on 2 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
02.07.2021 CTR No. 23 of 2021
Hon'ble Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, the learned counsel for
the appellant.
Ms. Puja Banga, the learned Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Issue notice to the respondent to show cause
as to why this Revision should not be accepted on
the following substantial questions of law :-
a) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, committed a manifest error of
judgment, in not appreciating the settled law,
that in order to impose purchase tax u/s 3(10)
r/w sub-clause (iii), a finding of fact had to be
arrived, that the raw materials/ consumables,
which were used or consumed in manufacture
of finished goods and such finished goods are
disposed of otherwise than by way of sale in
the State of Uttarakhand or in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce or in course of
export outside the territory of India; which
decision ought to have been taken, on the
strength of the values of purchases / sales -
stock transfers and percentages thereof,
considering the figures/ working notes,
computed on the basis of the Audited Balance
Sheet/ Profit & Loss Account for the
Assessment Year 2011-12?
(b) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, committed a manifest error of
judgment, in not appreciating the fact, that the
judgment returned by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand
High Court in Trade Tax Revision No. 48 of
2007 & Ors., Commissioner Commercial
Tax vs. Eastman Agro Mills Ltd., was
distinguishable, as it related to Input tax credit,
on manufacture of Rice bran oil and its bye-
product de-oiled cake and was not concerned
with section 3(10)(b) and sub-clauses (i) to
(iv) respectively?
(c) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, committed a manifest error of
judgment, in not appreciating the values of
purchases of raw materials/ consumables and
the values of sales of its finished goods/ values
of stock transfers; and did not keep in mind the
provisions of section 3(10); and as such
whether the finding of fact returned by the Ld.
Tribunal, was factually incorrect and therefore
perverse, leading to a substantial question of
law?
(d) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, did not even consider the fact that
when the Ld. Joint Commissioner (Appeals),
had upheld that part of the order, which had
confirmed a purchase tax u/s 3(10) concerning
purchase of Firewood from Unregistered
dealers to the tune of Rs. 17,20,664/- and
imposing a purchase tax @ 4.50% thereon; a
liability of Rs. 77,429.88 had been created,
which was admitted by the revisionist, who
deposited the same without demur; and
therefore the said purchase of Firewood, under
a deeming fiction, would be construed to fall in
the class of a purchases from a registered
dealer; and accordingly, the imposition of
purchase tax, would be recalculated/re-
determined u/s 3(10) of the Uttarakhand VAT
Act.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)(Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
02.07.2021 02.07.2021
Rahul
