Uttarakhand High Court
CTR/6/2022 on 26 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION NO. 06 OF 2022
26th JULY, 2022
Between:
Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Uttarakhand, Dehradun ...... Revisionist
and
M/s Bansal Electricals ...... Respondent
Counsel for the revisionist : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief
Holder for the State
Counsel for the respondent : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta with Ms.
Pallavi Bahuguna and Mr. Rafat
Munir Ali, learned counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present revision is directed against the
judgment rendered by the Commercial Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun Bench, Dehradun, in
Second Appeal No. 84 / 2014 [2008-2009 (Provincial)...
Tax Assessment Section 25(7)], dated 07.01.2020. The
said Second Appeal preferred by the Revenue has been
dismissed by the said Tribunal following its earlier
2
decision dated 01.07.2013, in the case of the
respondent-assessee itself, relating to the Assessment
Years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, which
were considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in
Appeal Nos. 5 of 2013, 06 of 2013 and 07 of 2013.
2) It is not in dispute that the Revenue had
preferred revision, being Commercial Tax Revision No.
43 of 2018, arising out of a similar order, passed by the
same Tribunal, in Second Appeal No. 08 of 2013,
relating to the previous year 2009-2010, in the case of
M/s Bansal Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Roorkee.
3) The said Commercial Tax Revision No. 43 of
2018 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court
holding as follows:
3. Learned brief holder appearing for the
revisionist, submits that the question of law that
arises for consideration in this revision as to whether
the goods attract tax @ 4% or 12.5%, is since
answered in favour of the assessee for previous year
namely 2008-09 in the case of the assessee itself.
Therefore, for the present year in question namely
2009-10, the same requires to be applied.
4. We have heard learned counsels.
5. On considering the contentions, we are of
the considered view that no substantial question of
3
law arises for consideration in this revision. The
position of law has since been answered in favour of
the assessee in the previous year 2008-09, therefore,
the same cannot change for the next year. Hence,
we do not find any good ground to entertain this
revision.
6. The revision is dismissed.
4) We have heard learned counsel for the
revisionist. We have also perused the impugned
judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
5) The Tribunal has extracted the reasoning
adopted by it while rendering its judgment dated
01.07.2013, which forms the basis of the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal. The said reasoning shows that
the Tribunal - while passing the judgment dated
01.07.2013, applied the test of reversibility while dealing
with the submission of the Revenue, that a copper or
aluminium wire could not be considered to be the same
product as a coil made of copper or aluminium, as the
case may be. The Tribunal found that the process of
converting a copper or aluminium wire into a coil is a
reversible process, and if the process is reversed, the
aluminium / copper wire regains its shape and property
4
without undergoing any change. Thus, the Tribunal
rejected the submission of the Revenue.
6) In the light of the aforesaid, in our view, no
question of law arises. We also see no reason to take a
different view from the one taken by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Commercial Tax Revision No. 43
of 2018, decided on 30.12.2020.
7) Accordingly, in our view, no question of law
arises, and we dismiss this revision.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
__________
R.C. Khulbe, J.
Dt: 26th JULY, 2022
Negi
