Uttarakhand High Court
6 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5001-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
Writ Petition (M/B) No.120 of 2025
16 June, 2025
J.V.M. Industries --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Dr. Govind Singh Latwal and Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned for the
petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State through V.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Brief Holder for the State.
2. The issue, in a nutshell, that arises for
determination in the instant writ petition, is whether the
amount levied as tax due is correct or not?
3. The case of the petitioner is that, on account
of an addition of a numerical figure, the same has
resulted in an arithmetical miscalculation and it has
2025:UHC:5001-DB
resulted in a situation, where the tax demand is more
than the taxable value of the turnover / transactions
undertaken by the petitioner.
4. On the last date of hearing, the Court had
directed the learned counsel for the State to secure
instructions with regard to the case of arithmetical error
canvassed by the petitioner.
5. Today, learned counsel for the State would
submit that the department had issued 4-5 notices and,
despite the notices, no explanation was forthcoming
from the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that assessment period relates to 2018-
2019 and that the notices were issued four years
thereafter in 2023.
7. Be that as it may, the competent authority,
having issued a notice and presuming for arguments
sake that the demand under the notice was erroneous,
the petitioner, as an assessee, was duty bound to affect
a reply and point out the error. The failure has resulted
in the present situation with the petitioner being forced
to approach this Court.
2025:UHC:5001-DB
8. Learned counsel for the State/respondent
would fairly submit that, in the event, there being a
miscalculation or an arithmetical error on account of
introduction of an additional numerical figure, the
department is always open for reconsideration of the
same and the matter may be remitted back.
9. Having heard the counsels, we are of the
opinion that the error being pointed out by the
petitioner, being mere arithmetical error, the provisions
of Section 161 can be invoked by the petitioner. That
apart, the second proviso to Section 161 reads as
under:-
"Provided further that the said period of six
months shall not apply in such cases where
the rectification is purely in the nature of
correction of a clerical or arithmetical error,
arising from any accidental slip or omission"
10. The case canvassed by the petitioner falls
squarely within the ambit of the second proviso.
11. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed
in part. The petition is disposed of by granting liberty to
the petitioner to prefer an application under the second
proviso to Section 161 of the Act, 2017 and, if such an
application is made, the same shall be considered
2025:UHC:5001-DB
without reference to the limitation imposed under the
first proviso and the same shall be considered and
disposed of on merits by the A.O. Till such disposal of
the application preferred by the petitioner under Section
161, there shall be no coercive action, subject to the
condition that the application, invoking the provision of
Section 161, shall be made within two weeks from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
12. Petition stands ordered, accordingly. There
shall no order as to costs.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 16.06.2025
BS
