[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mr Tube Private Limited vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 12 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:813
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3759 of 2025
Mr Tube Private Limited --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner
has put to challenge the orders dated 12.03.2025 and
10.09.2025, whereby, petitioner's rectification application was
rejected and he was asked by the order dated 12.03.2025 to
deposit the tax dues along with interest and penalty.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner
that in the year 2023, respondents-State has floated a policy
under One Time Settlement Scheme, wherein, it was provided
that if a tax payer deposited the tax dues on or before
30.09.2023, the penalty and interest thereon would be waived
off and proceedings against him would be dropped. The
petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid scheme,
petitioner has deposited the entire tax levied upon him on
30.09.2023.
3. It is further contended by him that there is one
condition in the aforesaid scheme that if any appeal is
pending against the relevant assessment order, the said
appeal would be withdrawn by the appellant/assessee.
Unfortunately, the petitioner- assessee could not withdraw the
appeal filed by him, which was remanded and the Assessing
Officer again assessed the tax liability upon the petitioner. The
petitioner moved rectification application which got dismissed
vide impugned order dated 10.09.2025.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner
that since the petitioner has availed the Scheme and deposit
2026:UHC:813
the tax liability, therefore, only on account of a procedural
mistake that the appeal was not withdrawn by him, he should
not be inflicted with the tax liability along with interest and
penalty.
5. Per contra, it is contended by learned State
Counsel that so far as the One Time Settlement Scheme is
concerned, there is no dispute to that. However, learned State
Counsel submits that instead of coming to this Court,
petitioner has an alternate remedy of Appeal under Section 51
of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2005.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the impugned orders as well as the pleadings
in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that in the given
facts and circumstances, it would be inappropriate to direct
the petitioner to avail the remedy of Appeal against the fresh
assessment order which apparently have been done due to a
lapse on the part of the petitioner of not withdrawing the
appeal which was pending against the initial assessment
order. The petitioner, after availing the One Time Settlement
Scheme, has deposited the tax and merely on account of not
withdrawing the appeal, he should not have been reassessed
by the Authority.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
reassessment order dated 12.03.2025 as well as the order
dated 10.09.2025 passed on rectification application, shall
stand quashed. The Assessing Authority shall drop the
reassessment order and pass a dropping order, in accordance
with law, in favour of the petitioner.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
12.02.2026
PN
