Uttarakhand High Court
CTR/41/2022 on 4 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
AND
SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.
4th August, 2022
DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2022
IN
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION NO. 41 OF 2022
Between:
Commissioner,
State / Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand,
Dehradun. ......Revisionist
and
M/s Vinayak Agencies, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.
....Respondent
&
DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2022
IN
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION NO. 42 OF 2022
Between:
Commissioner,
State / Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand,
Dehradun. ......Revisionist
and
M/s Vinayak Agencies, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.
....Respondent
Counsel for the revisionist : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder
for the State / revisionist.
Counsel for the respondents :
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made
the following
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
There is delay of forty-five days in filing these
Commercial Tax Revisions.
2. We are not getting into the aspect of the delay,
since we have heard Ms. Puja Banga, the learned counsel
for the revisionist, on merits, and after perusing the
impugned judgment and the record, even otherwise, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
3. The question that arose for consideration before
the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in the two
Second Appeals before it, namely Second Appeal No.
61/2018 {2010-11 under Section 25(7)/29(4)} and
Second Appeal No.62/2018 (2011-12 under the same
provisions) was whether epoxide resin could be classified
as resin and, therefore, was liable to be taxed at the rate
of 4.5%, or whether epoxide resin should be classified
under the residuary category and taxed at 13.5%.
4. The Assessment Officer classified the epoxide
resins under the residuary category and taxed the same
on the higher rate, i.e. 13.5%. The First Appeal preferred
by the respondent-assessee was also rejected.
5. By the impugned common judgment, the
Tribunal has allowed the said Second Appeals preferred by
the assesse. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that
the Allahabad High Court had an occasion to consider the
same issue in the matter of CIT vs. Kumar Udyog
Gandhi Gram. The Allahabad High Court concluded that
resins include all kinds of resins, including synthetic resin.
For this purpose, the Allahabad High Court placed reliance
on the dictionary meaning of the word "resin", as
contained in the Webster Dictionary, to mean "any of
various solid or semisolid organic substances exuded from
various plants tree or prepared synthetically".
6. Reliance was also placed on the Chambers
Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, and Encyclopedia Britannica
to press the point that the word "resins" includes
"synthetic resins".
7. The submission of the Revenue that the
Legislature had not used the expression "all types of
resins" and only the word "resin" had been used in the
Entry, was rejected by the Tribunal, as was also rejected
by the Allahabad High Court by observing that the Entry
"resin" had to be construed in plurality, and the Entry did
not specifically exclude "synthetic resin" or "epoxide
resin".
8. Reference was made to the provisions of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, which, under Section 13,
provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
inter alias, words in the singular shall include the plural,
and vice versa.
9. The view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned
judgment appears to be well reasoned, and is founded
upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court aforesaid,
and we see no reason to interfere with the same.
10. In our view, no question of law arises for our
consideration, since the issue already stands settled by a
Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
11. The present Commercial Tax Revisions stand
dismissed accordingly.
12. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,
also stands dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
____________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt:4th August, 2022
Rathour
