CTR/29/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3111 UK

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                      order with
                     Signatures
      12.10.2023                     CTR No. 29 of 2023
                                     Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                     Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State- revisionist.

2. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for the respondent.

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.01 of 2023)

3. The revisionist has filed this application to seek condonation of delay in filing the present revision. The delay has been computed as 597 days.

4. We have heard learned counsels.

5. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 03.04.2021. The impugned order was passed during COVID-19 pandemic. By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court, passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.03 of 2022, on 10.01.2022, the limitation period was suspended upto 28.02.2022. All persons were granted limitation period for 90 days from 28.02.2022 to avail of their legal remedies. Consequently, the revisionist had limitation upto 29.05.2022. The present revision was filed on 20.02.2023. Consequently, the delay is in the range of 270 days.

6. The reason given by the revisionist to seek condonation of delay is that after the copy of the impugned judgment was received, the matter was discussed at different levels at the Department, which consumed time. After obtaining permission, the matter was entrusted to the Chief Standing Counsel, whereafter, the present revision was preferred.

7. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present revision.

8. Reliance placed by the respondent on the order dated 23.12.2022 in CTR No.65 of 2022, is not apposite considering that in that case, the delay was computed as 516 days. While passing the said order, the revisionist had not brought to the notice of the Court the suspension of limitation period by the Supreme Court and, accordingly, the delay was wrongly computed as 516 days in that case.

9. Accordingly, we allow the present application and condone the delay in filing the present revision.

CTR No.29 of 2023

10. Admit.

11. The following substantial question of law is framed:-

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that 'Nylon Chips' fall under serial no.83 of the schedule II-B of Uttarakhand VAT Act thereby considering them as 'Plastic granules' and taxable @5% and not 13.5% as held by the authorities?"

12. List for hearing on 06.05.2024.

 (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)                 (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
            12.10.2023                       12.10.2023
NISHANT