Uttarakhand High Court
CTR/22/2021 on 11 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
CTR No. 22 of 2021
11TH JUNE, 2021
Mr. P.R. Mullick, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr.Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State /
respondent.
ORDER:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to
why the present revision petition should not be accepted
on the substantial questions of law, which are as
under:-
(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
deduction of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956, is to be allowed under Rule 14(2)(a) of
the Uttarakhand VAT Rules 2005,if the movement
of goods from one State to another is occasioned
in pursuance to a Works Contract?
(b) Whether on facts, law and circumstance of the
case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun,
committed a manifest error of judgment, in not
appreciating that it could not be a case of deemed
sales in the State of Uttarakhand (under Section
2(40) r/2 Explanation 2); in as much as, the
movement of goods from outside the State of
Uttarakhand, was in the course of inter-state trade
or commerce, as the said goods were involved in
execution of Words Contract, more so because of
the fact, that this was the only contract or activity
of the revisionist, in the State of Uttarakhand; and
there was no whisper of any good being disposed
or sold otherwise?
(c) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, committed a manifest error of
judgment in holding that these goods purchased
from outside the State, were not specific or
ascertained goods, utterly ignoring the fact that
improvement / Strengthening of Road in District
2
Udham Singh Nagar contract spelt out quality,
specification, maintenance of records, inspection,
approval for payment, post completion testing,
measurements and milestone payments etc., were
mandated?
(d) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, committed a manifest error of
judgment, in holding that the revisionist was at
liberty to use any quality or specification of goods
consumed in the Works Contract; utterly ignoring
the fact, that Improvement / Strengthening of
Road in District Udham Singh Nagar, was an
activity, which contemplated strengthening of
roads in District Udham Singh Nagar as per
International Standards?
(e) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, did not even care to look into the facts
of the transactions, that purchase orders to
suppliers clearly mentioned that these supplies
were specifically ordered and to be consumed for
3
Improvement / Strengthening of Road in District
Udham Singh Nagar; and could not be used or
consumed elsewhere; and the transactions totally
matched / correlated with invoices of suppliers,
receipt of goods against Form-XVI Declarations,
G.R.'s / Bilties and issuance of C-Forms etc. and
as such the Ld. Tribunal committed a manifest
error of judgment, in wholly misappreciating the
facts of the case; and therefore rendering the
judgment perverse and against settled facts and
law?
(f) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
Dehradun, committed a manifest error of
judgment, in relying upon the provisions
contained, in the Civil Construction Works Contract
Compounding Scheme Notification dated
10.08.2015 (issued u/s 7(2) of the Uttarakhand
VAT Act 2005), in the teeth of independent
provisions u/s 3, 4 & 5 of the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956 and applied to Rule 14 of the
Uttarakhand VAT Rules 2005?
4
(g) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, in ignoring the judgments of other
Courts in India, all dealing with the matters of
Civil Construction Works Contracts; and thereby
the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun,
committed a manifest error of facts and law, in
ignoring the Doctrine of Stare Decisis, which
doctrine if applied would ensure uniformity and
certainty in law?
(h) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
committed a manifest error of judgment, in
enhancing the turnover, without rejecting the
books of accounts nor passing any speaking order
on the same; as to why it was not accepting the
returned turnover, as spelt out in the contractual
agreement with PWD, Udham Singh Nagar; which
was of a binding nature and there was no reason
to doubt the same?
(i) Whether on facts, law and circumstances of
the case, the Ld. Commercial Tax Tribunal,
committed a manifest error of judgment in
5
enhancing the turnover / enhancing the rate of tax
and quantum of assessment without providing any
show cause notice / specific opportunity of
hearing, as contemplated u/s 43(5)(a) r/w
explanation to Section 53(6)?
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 11th June, 2021
RATHOUR
